Nawab Ahmad And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

The application seeking leave to appeal is not opposed and is, therefore, ordered.

This application is filed seeking leave to prefer an appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in WPMS No. 3225 of 2017 dated 19.06.2019. The respondent-writ petitioners invoked the jurisdiction of this Court contending that grant of permission to establish an abattoir by the second respondent-Nagar Palika Parishad, Manglore, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar, in favour of the third respondent, is arbitrary and illegal.

The appellants-writ petitioners contended that establishment of an abattoir in a residential area, and next to the agricultural lands of the respondents-writ petitioners, is illegal. It was also contended that the State Government had not framed any policy for the establishment of an abattoir; and in any case the lease, which was hitherto granted in favour of the third respondent partnership firm, has itself been cancelled.

The third respondent, a partnership firm, hitherto consisted of four partners. Mr. Azim Hussain, (one of the partners), was the owner of the land, and had granted a lease in favour of the partnership firm. Consequent upon differences arising between the partners, Mr. Hussain cancelled the lease on 28.11.2017, and sought approval to run an abattoir as a proprietary concern. The appellants-writ petitioners herein (the other three partners in the partnership firm) reconstituted the partnership firm, along with two others, on 10.05.2019 (which is said to have been registered after the order under appeal was passed); and approached the Nagar Palika Parishad, Manglore, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar for grant of permission to establish an abattoir elsewhere.

In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge recorded the undertaking of the learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the third respondent, that no slaughtering activities would take place in the slaughter house in terms of the order dated 12.06.2019, till the matter was decided by the Secretary, Urban Development who was directed to pass appropriate orders within fifteen days.

While the Secretary, Urban Development is, undoubtedly, entitled to examine issues relating to whether or not establishment of an abattoir in a residential area, and in proximity to the respondent-writ petitioner's land, is justified, and whether such an abattoir can be established by the Municipal Corporation without a policy being framed in this regard by the State Government, the inter-se disputes between partners of the third respondent firm are matters wholly extraneous to the issue which he is required to decide.

The claims and counter claims, of the partners of the third respondent partnership firm, can only be adjudicated in properly constituted legal proceeding, and not by the Secretary, Urban Development. Suffice it, in such circumstances, to make it clear that the inter-se dispute between the partners of the third respondent firm shall not be the subject matter of inquiry by the Secretary, Urban Development; and it is always open to the appellants-writ petitioner herein to avail such legal remedies, as are available to them in law, regarding cancellation of the lease deed, dissolution of the partnership firm and its reconstitution, and whether the newly constituted partnership firm is entitled to claim that they be granted license to establish an abattoir elsewhere.

Subject to the aforesaid observations, the appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.