Rajasthan High Court: In a series of civil writ petitions, filed by the petitioners against cancellation of their meet shop licences located within 50 meters radium of a temple, the Single-Judge Bench of Anoop Kumar Dhand, J., upheld the cancellation observing that it violated the Standard of Procedure (‘SoP’) issued by the authorities and the Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Businesses) Regulations, 2011. The Court noted that the SoP aims to maintain harmony and respect towards places of worship and educational institutions like schools. The Court further noted that if a temple is situated in an open area and is accessible to the public, it will be construed as a public temple and that the SoP was a valid basis for the cancellation.
Background
The case involved three petitioners who were proprietors of meat shops in the Village Sukhpuriya area of Sanganer, Jaipur. Their licenses to run a meat shop were cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner, Nagar Nigam Greater, Jaipur, via an order dated 17-02-2025. This decision was made after a show cause notice dated 01-10-2024, was issued to them. The petitioners appealed the cancellation to the District Collector, Jaipur, under Section 269(4) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (‘the Act of 2009’), but their appeal was rejected on 11-03-2025. The petitioners filed present petitions challenging the orders of both the District Collector and the Deputy Commissioner.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioners, and after hearing their submissions, the Deputy Commissioner decided to cancel their licenses because the shops were in violation of the SoP. The Court noted that the District Collector also upheld this decision after recording a cogent and reasoned finding.
The Court noted that as per Clause-4 of the SoP issued by the respondents, meat shops are not permitted to operate within a radius of 50 meters from any religious place, including public temples or educational institutions such as schools, etc. This is to maintain harmony and respect towards places of worship and educational institutions like schools. In case of violation of this provision, the authorities are empowered to cancel the license of the concerned shop. The Court further noted that as per Regulation 2.1.2(1)(5) under Chapter 2 read with Schedule-4 under Part IV of the Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Businesses), Regulations, 2011, the minimum distance between the licensed meat shop and any place of worship should not be less than 50 meters.
The Court rejected the argument of the plaintiffs that the temple situated within 50 meters radius of the meat shops is not a public temple. The Court pointed out that,
“Temple is a place of worship dedicated to a specific deity or deities, where individuals or groups perform their religious activities, prayers or ceremonies. Temple means a place, by whatever designation known, used for public religious worship where anyone can worship and the same is accessible to the public at large. Thus, every temple is a public property unless proved otherwise.”
The Court noted that if a temple is situated in an open area and is accessible to the public, it will be construed as a public temple. The Court observed that since the temple was located in an open area of a market and was accessible to the public, it must be considered a public temple. The Court further observed that the meat shops of the petitioners are situated within a radius of 50 meters of the temple in question for which legally the license to run meat shops cannot be granted to them and the same has been rightly cancelled by the respondents.
The Court noted that the SoP was issued in pursuance of the provisions contained under Sections 269 and 340 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009. Unless and until the validity of Clause-4 of the SoP is challenged by the petitioner and the same is quashed, the petitioners are not entitled to get any relief.
The Court quashed the writ petitions.
[Aayush Narania v. State of Rajasthan, 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 4679, decided on 01-09-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Aradhana Swami and Dhriti Sharma, Advocates
For the Respondents: G.S. Gill AAG with S.P.S. Rajawat Asstt. G.C., Manoj Kumar, Advocates.
