AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.T. Ravi Kumar, J.—The petitioners are the successful bidders at the Beef Stall Auction conducted by the Kottayam Municipality for the financial year 2013-14. On the strength of the license issued thereafter, the petitioners are conducting slaughtering and selling (vending) of meat. The grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is regarding the non-feasance on the part of the second respondent on Exts.P2 and P3 representations carrying the requests to take appropriate action against unauthorized slaughtering and selling of meat within the limits of the Panchayat. It is the alleged inaction on the part of the respondents that constrained the petitioners to file this writ petition with the following prayers:-
(i) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent 2 and 3 to ensure strict compliance of Sections 453 and 455 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994.
(ii) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 2 and 3 to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exhibits P2 and P3 representations within a time limit.
In the context of the claims and contentions of the petitioners it is relevant to refer to the pleadings taken by them in paragraph 4 of the writ petition. The relevant portion of the said paragraph carrying the allegations reads thus:-
The petitioners learnt that at present certain persons from the areas falling under the erstwhile Panchayats are engaging in unauthorized slaughtering and selling of meat to various shops and hotels within the town limits of the 2nd respondent Municipality. The illegal acts of such persons by engaging unauthorized slaughtering and selling of meat in contravention of Sections 453 and 455 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 are effecting the legitimate rights of the petitioners who have expended huge sum of money for obtaining the necessary license by successfully bidding the same.
In fact, the said averments are nothing but a re-statement of the allegations raised by the petitioners in Ext.P2 and P3. Essentially, the grievance of the petitioners is regarding the unauthorized slaughtering and selling of meat. At the same, it is evident that in Exts.P2 and P3 as also in the writ petition only vague allegations are raised by the petitioners against unidentified persons. Even in respect of places where such alleged activities are allegedly going on there is absolute absence of any details in the pleadings. When such vague averments alone are made I have no doubt to hold that the respondent authority would not be in a position to identify the persons who are allegedly engaged in such unauthorized slaughtering and selling of meat. In such circumstances I am of the view that no fruitful purpose could be served by directing the respondents to act upon Exts.P2 and P3 as no specific allegations have been raised thereunder. At the same time, it is of no doubt that if such unauthorized slaughtering and selling of meat are taking place within the limits of the Municipality in terms of provisions under Sections 453 and 455 of the Act the respondents are having the power coupled with duty to take appropriate action, in accordance with law, against the offenders. In the absence of specific averments in the writ petition as also in Exts.P2 and P3 I am of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs sought for in this writ petition and this writ petition is therefore liable to fail and accordingly it is dismissed. However, it is made clear that dismissal of this petition will not stand in the way of the petitioner to bring to the notice of the respondents any incident of unauthorized slaughtering and vending of meat within limits of the Municipality and in case the petitioners bring to the notice of the authorities regarding any such illegal activities respondents shall take appropriate steps in accordance with law.
Subject to the above observation this writ petition is dismissed.