Allahabad High Court seeks response from Central, State govts in PIL against illegal meat shops and slaughterhouses in Ghaziabad
The PIL has claimed that out of total 3,000 meat shops and slaughterhouses that are running at present in the district, only 17 have the requisite licenses.
The Allahabad High Court has recently directed the Central and State governments to file their respective responses in the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed against illegal operation of meat shops and slaughterhouses in the Ghaziabad district.
The division bench Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh has sought the responses by May 3, 2023.
The PIL has been filed by Himanshu Mittal, Ghaziabad Councilor. Mittal has alleged that there are meat shops running in the district in complete non-compliance of the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006, Prevention of Cruelty of Animals Act 1960, Environmental Protection Act 1986 and various guidelines issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change.
Mittal has claimed that there are a total of 3,000 meat shops and slaughterhouses running in Ghaziabad at present out of which only 17 have the requisite licenses under Section 31 of the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006.
None of the meat shops and slaughterhouses have the mandatory consent to establish and operate under Section 25 of the Water Act, Mittal has submitted.
Moreover, through his plea, Mittal has alleged that though the Supreme Court in Laxmi Narain Modi v. Union of India (2014) had constituted a committee on slaughterhouses in each state, such committees are completely defunct across the state of Uttar Pradesh.
Furthermore, Mittal has argued that at these meat shops and slaughterhouses, the perpetual cruelty on animals is caused in violation of the existing laws.
Taking note of the submission made through the plea, the division bench issued notice to the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), Animal Welfare Board of India, Commissioner of Food Safety, Ghaziabad Municipal Corporation, UP Pollution Control Board and Central Pollution Control Board and sought responses.
Case Title: Himanshu Mittal v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 11 others