Find a Lawyer

‑‑‑‑‑ S. 43 read with West Pakistan Animals Slaughter Control (Punjab) Amendment Ordinance (VIII of 1970‑‑Repeal of S. 43 Effect of ‑Beef‑seller's licence to sell beef continuously and regularly renewed till 1976 but its renewal refused in 1977‑Section 43 since repealed and slaughtering of animals placed under direct control of Veterinary Ofcer and licence no longer necessary‑‑Held, beef‑seller not required to take out licence and respondents had no authority to grant one.

Iftikhar Ahmad Bona for Petitioner.

Basher Pervez for A.‑G. for Respondents.

Dates of hearing : 26th February and 11th March, 1978.

This petition has been directed against the order dated 22nd December, 1977, passed by the Additional Commissioner on a revision petition challenging the order dated '9th August, 1977, passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner by that order rejected the petitioner's revision petition with the result that the petitioner was denied the right to carry on his beef business.

2. It is contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner held a licence to sell beef under section 43 of the Punjab Laws Act, 1872 since 1969. The licence was continuously and regularly being renewed by the competent authority till 1976. The petitioner applied to respondent No. 1 for the renewal of his licence in January, 1977. It was, however, ultimately refused on 28th May, 1977. A revision petition succeeded on 24th June, 1977, when the case was remanded by the Additional Commissioner to respondent No. 1. The renewal was again refused and same was the case with his revision petition which resulted in the impugned order.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel that section 43 of the Punjab Laws Act, 1872, had been repealed by the West Pakistan Animals Slau ghter Control (Punjab) ‑Amendment Ordinance, 1970, and, therefore, no further licence was required by the petitioner. The new enactment i0cor porated other provisions placing slaughtering of animals under the direct control of a Veterinary Officer with the result that a licence was no longer necessary.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents could not meet the objec tion raised by the petitioner. He admitted that section 43 of the Punjab Laws Act, 1872, bad been repealed and that no provision existed in any other law thereafter to require of the petitioner to secure a licence. The same position was repeated by the learned counsel after he was given an adjournment, to seek fresh instructions. He, however, relied on an unrepor ted judgment of this Court, but that too will not apply after the Punjab Local Government Act of 1975 whereby the power to grant a licence of any nature in a Municipal Committee or a Town Committee is vested in that authority and not the Deputy Commissioner.

5. In view of the above it is quite clear that both the parties were labouring under a misconception. Whereas the petitioner was not required to take out a licence, the respondents had no authority to grant one. The refusal to grant, therefore, is not objectionable though the reasons attached to it were without lawful authority.

In view of the observations made above, this petition shall stand dis posed of with no order as to costs.

R.M.A. Writ petition disposed of

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.