SAMERAWICKRAME, J.—Sebastian v. Ediriweera
1969Present: Samerawickrame, J.
S. SEBASTIAN and 2 others, Appellants,'and A. D. A. EDIRIWEERA(Veterinary Stock Inspector), Respondent
S. C. 2343-1345J66—31. .31. C. Colombo, 26685
Municipal Council of Colombo—By-Law prohibiting sale of meat of animals notslaughtered at the Municipal.Slaughter House—Validity—By-Law 30 of ChapterXIII of the By-Laws and Begulaiions—Butchers Ordinance, ss. 3 (a), 4 (1), 14.
By-law 30 of Chapter XIII of the By-laws and Regulations of the MunicipalCouncil of Colombo is not void as being inconsistent with the provisions of thoButchers Ordinance when it restricts the sale of meat to sale only of meat ofanimals slaughtered in the Municipal Slaughter House.
Lafier v. Ediriweera (70 N. L. R. 334) not followed.
Appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Magistrate’s Court,Colombo.
F. Sethukavalar, with S. G. Wijesekera and A. Pulhumanayagain,for the accused-appellants.
Wanigatunga, with S. Basnayake, for the complainant-respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
April 26, I960. Samerawickrame, J.—
The first, second and third accused-appellants Mere jointly chargedon the following count:—
“ Thai, they did, at stall No. 2G, Edinburgh Market, on the 3rd dayof August, 1965, expose for sale 243 lbs. of meat and one heart of acarcase of an animal not slaughtered at the Municipal Slaughter House,Colombo, and thereby committed an offence in breach of s. 30 ofChapter XIII of the Municipal Councils By Laws and Regulations readwith s. 267 (2) of the Municipal Councils Ordinance No. 29 of 1947 andpunishable under Rule (2) of Chapter 25 of the aforesaid by Jawspublished in Government Gazette No. 8212 of 8th April, 1936. ”
SAMERAWTCKRAME, J.—Sebastian v. Ediriuccra –
After trial, the learned Magistrate found them guilty and sentencedthe 1st and 2nd accuscd-appcllants to pay a fine of Its. 75 each, and the3rd accused-appellant to pay Its. 75 as Crovm costs. They have ap2>ealcdagainst the convictions nnd sentences.
The only submission made b}r learned Counsel for the appellants wasthat the By-law, which is the basis of the charge, was void as beinginconsistent with the provisions of the Butchers Ordinance. TheB3'-Law reads :—
“ 30. Except as otherwise provided in these by-laws, no carcase ofany animal (or any portion thereof) not slaughtered at a MunicipalSlaughter-house shall be brought into a public or private market,or to any place specially licensed as provided in by-law 9 of this Chapter,or sold or exposed for sale in any public or private market or in anysuch specially licensed place. The provision of this by-law shall notapply to meat.,'game, or fish imported into – the Island. Meat,game or fish so imported shall be sold in any placo specially licensedtherefor. ”
Section 4 (1) of the Butchers Ordinance states :—
“ No person shall carry on the trade of a butcher except under theauthority of an annual licence or a temporary licence in that behalfissued by the proper authority. ”
The terra “ butcher ” is defined as follows :—
“‘butcher* shall include every person that slaughters animals orexposes for sale the meat of animals slaughtered in Ceylon. ”
The proper authority to issue a licence in respect of an area within theadministrative limits of a Municipal Council is the Mayor of the Councilor any person authorized in writing on his behalf—v^de Section 3 (a) ofthe Butchers Ordinance.
From the definition of the word “ butcher ” it would appear that thetrade of a butcher may involve two different functions ; the slaughter ofanimals and the exposing for sale of the meat of animals slaughtered inCcj-l on.
In regard to the slaughter of animals, Section 14 of the ButchersOrdinance contains the following provision :—
“ No licensed butcher shall slaughter any animal at any place other .than—
(а)the place appointed by the proper authority ; or
(б)any public slaughterhouse as hereinafter provided ;
nor between the hours of 6 p.m. and C a.m. “
Public slaughterhouses are dealt with in Chapter III of the ButchersOrdinance and have to be certified by the proper authority which hasalso the power to make regulations in regard to their establishment,
SAMERAWICKRAME, J.—Sebastian v. Ediriweera
regulation, management- and general discipline. The proper authority inregard to slaughterhouses within, its administrative limits is the MunicipalCouncil of Colombo. The Council has made By-Laws providing for slaugh-terhouses which are contained in Chapter XII of the By-Laws and Regula-tions of the Municipal Council of Colombo. A Municipal slaughter-house referred to in By-Law 30 is obviously a slaughterhouse providedfor in the said By-Laws contained in Chapter XII. It was not suggested,nor is there any evidence, that there is within the Municipal limits ofColombo any other public slaughterhouse or any other plate appointedby the proper authority for the slaughter of animals, within the meaningof s. 24 of the Butchers Ordinance. So far, therefore, as a butcher who islicensed under the Butchers Ordinance in respect of any area within theadministrative limits of the Municipal Council of Colombo is concerned,the By-Law does not have the effect of restricting the places at whichhe may' slaughter animals.
In this case, no licence under the Butchers Ordinance appears to havebeen marked, but there is a statement that Mr. Scthukavalar producedthe Butchers licence on behalf of the 3rd accused. The Butch era licenceissued to the 3rd accused would not entitle him to slaughter animalsoutside the administrative limits of the Municipal Council of Colombo asthe proper authority that issued the licence to him coukl only authorizehim to carry on that trade of butcher in an area within the administrativelimits of the Municipal Council of Colombo.
The Butchers Ordinance makes provision for the slaughter of animalsby a licensed butcher within the area of a Municipal Council, or of anUrban Council, or of a Town Council, or of Village Committee or anyother area /ailing within the administrative region of an Assistant Com-missioner of Local Government. It also provides for the slaughter ofanimals by a person other than a licensed butcher on permits issued interms of the provisions in Chapter II. There is, however, no provisionin the Butchers Ordinance which states that only the meat of animalsslaughtered under or in terras of the jjrovisions of the Butchers Ordinancemay be exposed for sale or sold by a licensed butcher. If a person,other than a licensed butcher, slaughters an animal without a permit, hewould no doubt be committing an offence under the Ordinance ; but ifthe carcase of that animal is exposed for sale by a licensed butcher thatact would not- be a contravention of any provision of the ButchersOrdinance, but the licensed butcher may risk the revocation of hislicence.
There is contained in the Ordinance the requirement of a licencebefore any person exposes meat of animals slaughtered in Ceylon for sab*.
Tt appears to me that the Ordinance treats the licence as a sine qua nmtfor the sale of meat of animals slaughtered in Ceylon but has no provisionin regard to the rial lire or quality or any other attribute that the meatthat is to he exposed for sale should have. It is quite obvious that then-must he a wide area.in regard to which regulative provisions of some kindarc required. To take one instance, an animal which is healthy at the
SAMERAWICKRAME, J.—Sebastian v. Ediriuecra
time it is slaughtered may become verminous later and, so far as theButchers Ordinance is concerned, there is no provision that prohibitsthe exposure for sale of such verminous flesh by a licensed butcher.
I am, therefore, of the view that a B}'-Law dealing with the meat ofanimals that may be sold or exjjosed for sale in any public or privatemarket or other specially licensed place within the administrative limitsof the Municipal Council of Colombo cannot be said to be inconsistentwith the provisions of the Butchers Ordinance for the reason that theButchers Ordinance has no provision dealing with the matter which isthe subject of the By-La w.
It was held in the case of While v. Morley1 that a B}'-Law. is notbad because it deals with something that is not dealt with by the generallaw. Section 23 of the Metropolitan Streets Act, 1SG7 made it an offenceto obstruct a street by three or more persons assembling for the purpose ofbetting and the By-Law made by the Glamorgan county council jDursuantto the provisions of s. 23 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1SS2,prohibited any person from frequenting an}' street or other public placefor the purpose of book-making or betting or wagering. The Courtheld that the section was a provision relating to traffic in streets anddealing with obstruction, while the By-Law aimed at frequenting a streetfor the purpose of betting, which was a different thing and a differentmischief.
In the case of Lafier v. Edirixveera- it was held that this b3'-Iawwas ultra vires as being inconsistent with the Butchers Ordinanceand that decision has been followed in S. C. lI0/’66 M. M. C. Colombocase No. 2G93S/MPL. These decisions proceed on the view that theprovisions of the Butchers Ordinance implied!}' authorize the sale of themeat of animals slaughtered in a public slaughterhouse or other placeappointed b}' the proper authority and the B}'-Law in question restrictsthe sale of meat onl}' to that of animals slaughtered in the Municipalslaughterhouse and that the B}r-Law is therefore inconsistent with theprovisions of the Ordinance. With respect I am unable to agree withthat view. It appears to me that in the absence of any provision in theOrdinance as to the meat of animals that may or may not be exposedfor sale by a licensed butcher it is not possible to say that the sale of anycategory of meat of animals has been impliedly authorized by the provi-sions of the Ordinance. Accordingly it follows that the By-Law does notprohibit what the provisions of the Ordinance impliedly authorized andthat is not inconsistent with such provisions.
I am, therefore, of the view that B}–Law30 of ChapterXIII of the By-Laws and Regulations of the Municipal Council of Colombo is not voidas being inconsistent with the provisions of the Butchers Ordinance.
The order of the learned Magistrate is therefore "affirmed and theappeals are dismissed.
» U899) 2 Q. B. 34.
* U9GG) TO N. L. Jt. 331.
S. SEBASTIAN and 2 others, Applicants, and A. D. A. EDIRIWEERA (Veterinary Stock