077-NLR-NLR-V-70-A.-H.-M.-LAFIER-and-another-Appellants-and-A.-D.-A.-EDIRIWEERA-Veterinary-Ins.pdf
334
Ziafitr v. Ediriweera
Present: Manicavasagar, J.A. H. M. LAFIER and another, Appellants, andA. D. A. EDIRIWEERA (Veterinary Inspector), Respondent
S. C. 614-615j65—M. M. C. Colombo, 25112
Municipal Council of Colombo—By-law prohibiting sale of meat of an animal notslaughtered in the Municipal Slaughter-House—Invalidity—By-law 30 ofchapter 13 of the By-laws and Regulations—Butchers Ordinance {Cap. 272),as. 2, 13, 14, 15, 18.
By-law 30 of chapter 13 of the By-laws and Regulations of the MunicipalCouncil of Colombo is ultra vires of the Butchers Ordinance in that it restrictsthe 6ale of meat to sale only of meat of animals slaughtered in the MunicipalSlaughter-House and thus prohibits the sale of meat of animals slaughteredat other authorised places.
.A.PPEAL from a judgment of the Municipal Magistrate’^ Cotirt,Colombo.
O.F. Sethukavalar, with S. O. Wijesekera and A. Pvthumainayagam.for the Accused-Appellants.
H. Wanigntunga, with N. Kasirajak, for the Complainant-Respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
* {1062) 64 N. L. R. 25 {P. C.) at 27.
MANICA VA R AG AR, J.—Lafier v. Ediriweera
335
September 29, 1906. Manicavasagar, J.—
Mr. Sethukavalars argument is that by-law 30 in Chapter XHI ofthe By-laws and Regulations of the Municipal Council of Colombo(Revised Edition, 1958), which the two appellants are said to havecontravened, is invalid as it is repugnant to the general law contained inthe Butchers Ordinance (Cap. 272, Revised Edition 1956). He submitsthat the purpose and effect of this by-law is to prohibit the sale or theexposure for sale, in a public or private market, of the meat of an animalnot slaughtered in the Municipal Slaughter-House ; whereas, the ButchersOrdinance does not prohibit the slaughter of animals by a licensed butcherat (i) a public slaughter house or (ii) any place appointed by the properauthority (section 14), or by any person other than a licensed butcher,on a permit granted to him, at any place specified in the permit (section18 and Form X) in the Schedule).
The 1st accused-appellant is, on the finding of the Magistrate, anemployee of the 2nd accused-appellant; the latter is a licensed butcher.A licensed butcher includes every person who obtains a licence undersection 4 of the Butchers Ordinance (Section 2). The 2nd accused-appellant has a licence (D 1) for the year ending 31st December, 1964,issued by the proper authority to slaughter animals and carry on thetrade of a butcher at private beef stall at 11, Vystwyke Road, Mattakuliya,in Colombo, conforming himself to the Butchers Ordinance. A butcher(section 2) includes every person who slaughters animals or exposes forsale the meat of animals slaughtered in Ceylon. The licence issued tothe 2nd accused-appellant authorises him to slaughter animals, and sellthe meat at the private beef stall mentioned in the licence. By-law 30prohibits the sale at a public or private market, of meat of an animal notslaughtered at the Municipal Slaughter-House.
Mr. Sethukavalar submits that there is, therefore, a conflict betweenthe by-law and the Butchers Ordinance. Mr. Wanigatunga for thecomplainant-respondent contends against this ; he submits that theslaughter of animals should be according to the law and section 14 of theButchers Ordinance gives no right, but places a restriction on a butcher’sright to slaughter animals.
To my mind section 14 enacts that a licensed butcher should notslaughter any animal except at a public slaughter house or at a placeappointed by the proper authority : there is, undoubtedly, a restrictionplaced on a licensed butcher as to the venue of the slaughter : he may notslaughter at any place he chooses. Mr. Wanigatunga is right in hissubmission that slaughter should conform to the requirements of thelaw ; for a licensed butcher whether he slaughters in a public slaughterhouse, or a place appointed by the proper authority, must comply withthe provisions of sections 13 and 15 of the Butchers Ordinance, and anyother provision applicable to the slaughter of animals, provided it doesnot conflict with the general law. My opinion is that by-law 30 byconfining the sale of meat of only animals slaughtered in tlio Municipal
336MANICAVASAGAR, J.—Lafier v. Ediriweera
Slaughter-House forbids and makes unlawful that which the generallaw has impliedly authorised. A by-law is said to be repugnant if itsays something inconsistent with the general law contained in a Statuteor if it expressly or by necessary implication seeks to run counter to thegeneral law. I agree with Mr. Sethukavalar’s submission, and I holdthat by-law 30 is ultra tires of the Butchers Ordinance.
No doubt, the by-laws and Regulations relating to slaughter-housesand markets have been framed with the essential object of safe guardingthe health of the community by providing for the sale of wholesome andclean meat, and other food in clean surroundings : the opinion I haveexpressed may fail to achieve this object as some of the by-laws may notbe applicable to animals slaughtered in a licensed private market. Ifmy opinion be right, the remedy lies with the legislature and the MunicipalCouncil.
The charges on which the appellants have been convicted fail, and theconvictions entered are set aside and they are acquitted ; the fine, if paid,should be returned to them.
Appeal allowed.