- (1.) Petitioners are before this Court with the following relief:- (i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 11.01.2016 & 17.05.2016 passed by the District Magistrate, Allahabad and respondent nos.2 and 4 closing the Atala Slaughter House and Eidgah Slaughter House. (ii) issues a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondents to allow the slaughtering of the buffalos at the Atala Slaughter house as per the capacity contained in the notification issued by the Union of India and make an arrangement for the safe disposal of the slaughtered animals blood and visra by the Nagar Nigam authorities. (iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the Municipal authority and District Administration to ensure expeditiously completion of the connecting drainage passing through the Atala Slaughter House with the Nomayadeeh near Kareli Kareda. (iv) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the City Commissioner and Animal Husbandry Welfare Officer to place the detialed plan for the modernization of the slaughter house on the basis of the budget of Rs.335.92 lacks released in the favour of the Nagar Nigam before this Court and this Court may kindly monitor the entire modernization process. (v) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondents Nagar Nigam authorities to renew and issue the fresh license for the running of the buffalo meat shops in the city. (vi) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondents Nagar Nigam authorities, Civil and Police administration not to disturb and harass and use and adopt coercive measure against the license meat shop owners engaged in the sale of the buffalo meat. (vii) issue such other writ, order or directions as this Court may deem fit and proper having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. (viii) to award cost of the Petition to the petitioners.
(2.) Petitioners submit that in the city of Allahabad, two slaughter houses were being run and as of now, the slaughter houses have been sealed resulting in large scale resentment amongst incumbents, who are engaged in the business of sale of meat and consumers of meat are also equally affected. Petitioners have proceeded to make a mention that erection of slaughter houses and its maintenance is primary duty of Nagar Nigam and for the fault of the Nagar Nigam, Allahabad, petitioners should not have been made to suffer and in view of this, this Court should intervene in the matter.
(3.) The plight that is being sought to be pointed out by the petitioners is not a local problem rather it is a State level problem and what we find that at Lucknow Seat of this Court in Misc. Bench No.6871 of 2017 (Saeed Ahmad vs. State of U.P. thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Lko. & others), this Court has proceeded to observe that whatever action is being taken on the ground level, the same is in pursuance of the order passed by the Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Narain Modi v. Union of India and others, Writ Petition (Civil) No.309 of 2003, alongwith the orders passed on 17.2.2017 by a Three Judges Bench of the Apex Court while hearing Writ Petition (Civil) No. 330 of 2001, Common Cause v. Union of India and others. The order is extracted hereunder:- "Pursuant to our orders dated 26.09.2016 and 28.10.2016, a compendium of the Indian Standards has been prepared along with all relevant material in consultation with all the stake-holders. The Union of India is directed to print the compendium in sufficient numbers and circulate it to all the State Governments and Union Territories for compliance. The Union of India will comply with our orders within six weeks from today. In the event there is non-compliance with the Indian Standards, other rules and regulations, the petitioners are entitled to approach the concerned District Collector or the judicial authorities, as the case may be in a given specific instance. Learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. (C) No.44 of 2004 seeks leave to withdraw the petition. W.P. (C) No.44 of 2004 is dismissed as withdrawn. W.P. (C) No.330 of 2001 is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.";