Read Time: 04 minutes
The counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the policy framed by the BMC does not allow slaughtering at public places including bus stops, airports, etc. However, the communication of the BMC which was challenged allowed slaughtering at mutton shops, even though mutton shops are not included in the policy, including those near airports
The Bombay High Court on Thursday refused to stay the permission granted by Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to 67 private shops and 47 municipal markets for slaughtering animals on the eve of Bakri Eid.
The division bench of the high court comprising Justice MS Sonak and Justice Kamal Khata was hearing a plea filed by Jiv Mantri Trust challenging the communication dated 29th May 2024 of the BMC granting permission for slaughtering.
The counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the policy framed by the BMC does not allow slaughtering at public places including bus stops, airports, etc. However, the communication of the BMC which was challenged allowed slaughtering at mutton shops, even though mutton shops are not included in the policy, including those near airports.
He further argued that the policy requires BMC’s permission through a notice 30 days in advance. He contended that the communication was against the policy of BMC.
Senior Advocate Milind Sathe, appearing for the BMC, contended that such applications are invariably made on the eve of festivals. Sathe pointed out that the communication only grants permissions to about 67 private shops and 47 municipal markets.
Sathe added that this permission is only for 3 days, i.e., June 17, 18, and 19. Furthermore, he contended that even in the past, similar permissions were granted to 72 establishments and the petitioner did not challenge the same.
The high court rejected the plea on the ground that the petitioner sought interim relief without filing an application for interim relief.
“The petitioner seeks interim relief in respect of communication given by BMC on 29 May 2024. The counsel for the petitioner submits urgency for seeking interim relief based on precipie. We are not sure if this is appropriate to seek interim relief in a pending case. We granted production in morning sessions when we were under the impression that application for IA is filed and production for same is sought,” the court said.
Furthermore, the bench noted that the petitioner did not amend the petition to challenge the communication. Without amending and challenging the communication, it would not be appropriate to press for interim relief.
Case title: Jiv Mantri Trust vs BMC
Please Login or Register
