' This writ petition has been brought challenging the acts of the respondents preventing the petitioners from carrying on with their vocation as to the slaughtering of the animals and selling of the beef and refusing to renew the licences of some of the petitioners and issuance of new licences to others, maintaining that the acts of the respondents constitute an infringement and violation of the rights of the petitioners to take to their trade.
2. Briefly the facts as alleged by the petitioners are that they are butchers by vocation and have been carrying on with their business of slaughtering animals and selling the beef for the last 25 years at Sangla Hill, as such, they are sticking to their vocation right from their forefathers. Some of the petitioners were issued with licences permitting them to carry on with their vocation vide Annexures Ail to A/3. After the expiry of their licences on 30-6-1982 when the petitioners sought the renewal thereof the respondent refused to renew the same and in respect with the other petitioners to issue fresh licences.
3. The writ petition has been resisted by the respondent Municipal Committee. It has been maintained on its behalf that the petitioners Nos. 7 to 10 were not licensees of the respondent committee so they are not aggrieved persons having no locus standi. The petitioners Nos. 1 to 6 were issued licences by the, then Chairman of the Municipal Committee Sangla Hill which issuance was without lawful authority because it was without the approval of the Local Council, Sangla Hill.
However, the petitioners were not allowed to continue with their business after the expiry of their licences. Petitioners Nos. 7 to 10, being not the licensees previously were not permitted to carry on with the abovesaid business. On a directive issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupura vide his letter No, AHC/5024 dated 5-6-1982, a review of the licences was carried out by the respondent-Committee in Sangla Hill and the number of licences issuable was reduced to a prescribed limit of seven in observance of the Government instructions contained in letter No, 4262-HG-49/71811 dated 13-12-1949. The respondent committee in its meeting held on 10-8-1982 passed a unanimous Resolution No, 9 to the effect that all the illegal licences were to be cancelled.
The renewal was treated as good only for seven licences which had already been issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupura. The instructions issued by the Government were of mandatory nature. There was no necessity of affording an opportunity of hearing to the licensees petitioners. - In this sense it was not cancellation of the licences of the petitioners but a simple reduction of the licences to a prescribed number of seven. The respondent-Committee denied any legal right vesting in the petitioners Nos. 1 to 6. As to the nature of the licences it has been maintained that petitioners Nos. 1 to 6, were issued licences only for the sale of beef by the then Chairman of the Municipal Committee, Sangla Hill. According to 1981 census figure the population of Sangla Hill being about thirty-three thousand, so seven beef licences could only be issued, the reduction of nine licences out of sixteen is in no way motivated by any mala fide.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that West Pakistan Animals Slaughter Control (Punjab Amendment) Ordinance, 1970 (Ordinance VIII of 1970) does not vest the respondents with any authority to put any restriction on the slaughtering and selling of beef. Even the West Pakistan Animals Slaughter Control Act, 1963, does not vest the respondent-Committee with any such powers. The undue interference of the respondent-Committee with the business of the petitioners is tantamount to an interference with the right to livelihood of the petitioners which right on a legal plane stands protected by the Constitution. It cannot be abridged so as to deny the petitioners their old vocation to carry on the slaughtering of the animals and selling the beef unless there is some law in force with un mistaken able terms. It has been lastly urged that the act of the respondents is out and out illegal and mala fide. In support of his arguments the learned counsel has relied upon Nazir Ahmad v. Deputy Commissioner etc. (I).
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has in his arguments reiterated the position taken up by him in the written statement. He has further contended that the West Pakistan Animals Slaughter Control (Punjab Amendment) Ordinance, 1970 (Ordinance VIII of 1970), creates no right in favour of the petitioners for either renewal or grant of beef licences. The petitioners have no any legal right to carry on therewith without having licences issued by the Local Council. The writ petition as brought is not competent since no violation of any legal right is involved, therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.
6. As to the control of slaughtering of kine and sale of beef first the field was occupied by the Punjab Laws Act, 1872. According to section 43, the slaughter of kine and the sale of beef was not to take place, except subject to rules to be framed from time to time either generally or in any particular instance, prescribed by the Provincial Government. So according to the rules as framed, rule 1, stood to the effect that kine was not to be slaughtered in any town or any town lands except in a place licensed for the purpose by a written licence granted by the Deputy Commissioner and in accordance with the condition of such licence and under rule 2, beef was not to be hawked about or exposed for sale in any town or in any town lands except within the enclosure of a public slaughter house licensed under rule 1, or at a shop licensed for the purpose in writing by the Deputy Commissioner: Then there was enacted Act HI of 1963 West Pakistan Animals Slaughter Control Act, 1963. It was an act with an object to prohibit the slaughtering of useful animals and to regulate the slaughter of other animals in West Pakistan. Under section 3, slaughtering of a useful animal was prohibited. As to the slaughtering of other animals the slaughter was to be carried out in a slaughter house during the prescribed hours, and that too, in a slaughter house as approved by the Local Council concerned. The slaughtering was to be carried on as provided by section 4, subject to the examination of the animal and approval of the Veterinary Officer. In the year 1970 on this subject another Ordinance was promulgated. That was Ordinance VIII of 1970, West Pakistan Animals Slaughter Control (Punjab Amendment) Ordinance, 1970. It was a measure to further amend the West Pakistan Animals Slaughter Control Act, 1963 as to its application to the province of the Punjab. By virtue of this promulgation, section 43 of the Punjab Laws Act, 1872 was repealed.
Thereafter only this Ordinance read with the Act of 1963 and Ordinance VII of 1982, Punjab Animals Slaughter Control A (Amendment) Ordinance, 1982, further amending the Punjab Animals Slaughter Control Act, 1963, occupied the field. Section 3 of the amending Ordinance, 1970, amending section 3 of the Act IIt of 1963, after subsection (2) adds the subsections which are reproduced below:- "(3) No person shall directly or indirectly,-
(a) sell, keep, store, transport, offer or expose for sale, or hawk any meat or carcass of any animal which has not been slaughtered. In a slaughter-house and does not bear the stamp or mark of the slaughterhouse prescribed by the local authority in this behalf ; or {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) NLR, 1978 Civil 1130 {{FOOT NOTE}}
(b) sell or cause to be sold any meat at a place other than that set apart or approved for this purpose by the local authority."
' The expression " local authority" appearing in the aforesaid provision has been defined in Ordinance VII of 1982, Punjab Animals Slaughter Control (Amendment) Ordinance, 1982. Under section 2(e), "local authority" means an urban local council constituted under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 (VI of 1979) or a Cantonment Board established under the Cantonments Act, 1924 (II of 1924).
7. As to the slaughtering of animals in view of the definition given of `slaughter house' in Act III of 1963, a slaughter-house means any building or premises used for slaughtering animals and approved by the local authority concerned. So it is clear in view of the abovesaid provision that the slaughtering of animals is to be conducted at an approved place and subject to the examination of the animals and approval by the Veterinary Officer. So B it cannot be carried on at large. In view of this provision the learned counsel for the petitioners has very rightly confined his petition only to the selling of beef and not as to the slaughtering of the animals.
' The selling and keeping etc. Of the beef is restricted only to the animals which are slaughtered in a slaughter-house and bear the stamp mark of the slaughter-house prescribed by the local authority and the selling or caused to be sold any meat is to be carried out at a place approved by the local authority and as to the regulation of the sale of such meat the provision under which the sale was to be regulated by a licensing system stands repealed therefore, the sale of the same is not to be subjected to a licensing system except the restriction mentioned in section 3 of Ordinance VIII of 1970, as such, the regulation of the sale under a licensing system and levying of fees C thereunder and the restriction as to the number of sellers in Sangla Hill by the respondent- Committee has no warrant of law behind it and the instructions issued either by the Provincial Government or the Deputy Commissioner concerned are without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
' Same question in another case arose for consideration by this Court in Nazir Ahmad v. Deputy Commissioner, .Thang etc. Wherein it was held after weighing section 43 of the Punjab Laws Act and amendment under Ordinance VIII of 1970, that the "petitioner was not required to take out a license, the respondents had no authority to grant one".
8. In the result the present writ petition is accepted to the extent of selling the beef and the regulation of sale by a licensing system and levying of fee thereunder and restriction as to the number of sellers in Sangla Hill by the respondent-Committee, is declared as without lawful authority and of no legal effect. This is to make it clear that under the dictate of the law the petitioners can carry on the sale of the meat at a place set apart or approved for this purpose by the respondent-Committee. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.