Rajasthan HC Disposes PIL on Jodhpur Meat Shops, Affirms Existing Bylaw Framework Sufficient

A Jodhpur resident's PIL sought a sweeping survey, slaughter restrictions, and licence cancellations; the Division Bench found the municipal regulatory framework already adequate.

The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur disposed of a Public Interest Litigation filed under Article 226 of the Constitution that called for a district-wide survey of meat and chicken shops, mandatory closure of establishments near religious places and schools, a ban on in-premises slaughter, and the cancellation of a specific licence held by a private respondent. The Division Bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Praveer Bhatnagar, after examining an additional affidavit filed by the Municipal Corporation authorities, held that the existing regulatory framework governing the meat trade in Jodhpur was sufficient and that no further adjudication was warranted. The bench declined to order a police inquiry into slaughterhouse operations, finding such a direction beyond the appropriate scope of PIL jurisdiction in the facts placed before it.

The PIL and Its Prayers

The petition was filed by Aasif Ali, a resident of Ward No. 37, Loharon Ki Masjid, Machchhi Market, Jodhpur. He was represented by Mr. Moti Singh. The six respondents were Municipal Corporation (North) Jodhpur, Municipal Corporation (South) Jodhpur, the Police Commissioner, the District Collector, a private individual identified as Mohammad Bilal who operated a meat shop in Ward No. 37, and the Jodhpur Development Authority.

The prayers were wide-ranging. The petitioner sought directions to survey all meat and chicken shops across Jodhpur district and initiate criminal prosecution against unlicensed operators. He asked the court to direct the Municipal Corporation to revise bylaws framed under Section 269 and Section 340 of the Municipal Act, 2009 so as to impose location-based restrictions keeping in view the proximity of religious places, educational institutions, bus stands, railway stations, and public parks. He also sought a blanket restriction on the slaughter of animals in shop premises, restaurants, and private houses, permitting slaughter only at authorised slaughterhouses under the Rules of 2000. Additionally, he wanted the specific licence held by respondent no. 5, Mohammad Bilal, quashed and his shop in Ward No. 37 closed forthwith.

Counsel for the petitioner argued before the bench that meat shops must be duly regulated, that no unlicensed shop should be allowed to operate, and that the location of such shops ought to account for public sentiment — particularly of those who do not consume meat. The issue of unlawful slaughter of animals was also raised.

The Municipal Bylaw Framework and the Affidavit

Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 2, the two Municipal Corporations, informed the court that meat shops in Jodhpur have been regulated under the Municipal Council, Jodhpur (Maas Vikray, Sthan Nirikshan) Bylaws, 1991, which were subsequently amended by the Jodhpur Nagar Nigam, Jodhpur (Maas Vikray, Sthan Nirikshan Amendment) Bylaws, 2012. Under this framework, persons wishing to operate meat shops must obtain a licence upon fulfilling the prescribed conditions and paying the requisite fee.

Counsel for the respondent authorities also stated that they were conscious of their responsibility to regulate the meat trade while ensuring compliance with the applicable framework, and that concerns relating to public hygiene and public sentiment were being kept in view.

In support of these submissions, the respondent authorities filed an additional affidavit. The affidavit disclosed that slaughterhouses had been demarcated. As of the date of the order, there were 351 licence holders in Jodhpur City: 189 licences were associated with the slaughterhouse at Mertiya Gate and 78 with the slaughterhouse at Siwanchi Gate. Of the total licences, 267 had been renewed, with the remaining under process of renewal.

Why the Bench Declined a Police Inquiry

Petitioner's counsel pressed the court to issue a direction for an inquiry by the Police Commissioner into the operation of slaughterhouses, to verify whether the regulated meat trade was being carried out in accordance with law.

The bench was not persuaded. It observed that the additional affidavit sufficiently set out the regulatory framework and the current state of licensing in Jodhpur. Given that factual picture, the court found it unnecessary to enter into “minute aspects of regulatory supervision” in the exercise of its PIL jurisdiction. No further detailed inquiry was directed.

The court did not address the specific prayer to quash the licence of respondent no. 5, Mohammad Bilal, or to close his shop in Ward No. 37. The bench's finding that no further adjudication was called for in light of the affidavit effectively subsumed that individual prayer within the broader disposal.

Compliance Directions on Unlicensed Shops

While disposing of the petition, the bench did set out a clear expectation for the respondent authorities going forward. The Municipal Corporations are to continue ensuring due compliance with applicable licensing requirements. If any meat shop is found operating without a licence, the person concerned must be informed of the requirement to obtain one. If an application is then made and the applicant is otherwise eligible, it must be considered strictly in accordance with law.

The bench also made clear that the operation of meat shops and connected activities remain subject to the applicable statutory provisions, rules, and bylaws. The court stated that these observations would govern the matter, and that remaining prayers not specifically addressed did not call for separate directions.

Outcome

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19570/2023 was disposed of on 10 July 2026. The prayers seeking a district-wide survey, bylaw revision, in-premises slaughter restrictions, a police inquiry into slaughterhouses, and the closure of respondent no. 5's shop were not granted. The bench directed the respondent authorities to continue enforcing the existing licensing framework and to process applications from unlicensed operators if and when made and if the applicant is eligible. Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.