027-NLR-NLR-V-60-ABDUL-MAJEET-Petitioner-and-J.-B.-RAJAPAKSE-Respondent.pdf
92
Abdul Majeed v. Rajapakse
1058Present: Weerasooriya, J.ABDUL MAJEED, Petitioner, and J. B. RAJAPAKSE, RespondentS. C. 147—Application for a Writ of Mandamus on the Chairman, V. G.
Kanogama Village Area, Kanogama
Butcher—Application for issue of licence to sell meat—Bights of applicant—ButchersOrdinance {Cap. 201), ss. 1, 13A (1), 14—Village Communities Ordinance(Cap. 198), s. 49, By-law 32—-Mandamus.
The petitioner made this application under tho Butchers Ordinance to theChairman of the Kanogama Village Committee for the issue of a licence for tiieyear 1958 for the sale of meat at certain premises within the Kanogama VillageCommittee area. The application was summarily refused by the Chairmanwithout any reasons being given.
Held, that a writ of mandamus was available against the Chairman directinghim to entertain the application and to deal with it in accordance with theprovisions of the Butchers Ordinance. Neither an Order made under section13A(l)of the Butchers Ordinance nor by-law No. 32 passed under section 49of the Village Communities Ordinance was a bar to the issue of the writ.
Application for a writ of mandamus on the Chairman, V. C.,
Kanogama Village Area, Kanogama.
E. B. Vannitamby, for the petitioner.
M. 8. M. Nazeem, with M. T. M. Sivardeen, for the respondent.
1 (1916) 19 N. L. B. 262.
WEERASOORIYA 3.—Abdul Majeed v. Rajapakse
93
July 15, 1958. Weerasoobiya, J.—
The petitioner made an application dated the 20th February, 1958,to the Chairman of the Kanogama Village Committee for the issue of alicence for the year 1958 for the sale of meat at premises No. Ill, Gan-suriyagahamullawatta situated in Bandarakoswatta within the Kano-gama Village Committee area. By letter dated the 25th February, 1958,this application was summarily refused by the Chairman without anyreasons being given. The petitioner has now come into this Court for awrit of mandamus on the Chairman, Village Committee of Kanogama,to compel him to entertain the application and to deal with itaccording to law.
The law applicable would be the provisions of the Butchers Ordinance(Cap. 201). The respondent to this application has filed an affidavitsetting out the grounds for refusing the application for a licence. Oneof the grounds stated is that the application was not in conformity with theprovisions of the Butchers Ordinance, but Mr. Nazeem who appeared forthe respondent was unable to enlighten me in what respect the applicationfailed to conform to the provisions of Section 7 of the Ordinance whichis the section providing for applications of this nature. Another groundis that there is in operation an Order under Section 13 A (1) of the ButchersOrdinance prohibiting the slaughter of animals and the sale of beefwithin the area of the Village Committee of Kanogama as from the 1stJanuary, 1956, and that in view of that Order the refusal to issue thelicence was justified. But Section 13 A (1) only empowers the properauthority to prohibit the slaughter of animals, as was pointed out inthe case of Ismail v. Marasinghe 1, and it was conceded by Mr. Nazeemthat the Order relied on by the respondent is ultra vires in so far as itpurported to prohibit the sale of beef.
A further ground relied on in the affidavit is the existence of a by-law(No. 32) which is one of certain by-laws purporting to have been madeby the Village Committee of Kanogama under Section 49 of the VillageCommunities Ordinance (Cap. 198) and published in Government GazetteNo. 10,147 of 1st September, 1950. By-law No. 32 is as follows :—
“ No licensee of a meat stall shall sell or expose for sale in thatstall the meat of any animal which has not been slaughtered in a publicslaughter-house situated within the village area and declared and pro-claimed under Section 21 of the Butchers Ordinance (Cap. 201), or in aplace appointed for the purpose of slaughtering animals under Section 11of that Ordinance, or under a permit issued under Section 14 of thatOrdinance ”.
Mr. Nazeem contended that even if the Order under Section 13 A (1)of the Butchers Ordinance be regarded as ultra vires in so far as it prohi-bited the sale of beef, by-law No. 32 amounts to a total prohibition againstselling orexposing for sale the meat of any animal. I do not think, however,that by-law No. 32 can be given such an interpretation. It seems to methat the terms of that by-law do not preclude a licensed butcher fromselling or exposing for sale within the area of the Village Committeeof Kanogama the meat of any animal slaughtered on a permit issued under1 (1956) 58 N. L. B. 38.
>J4
H. X. G. FERNANDO, J.—Kiri Banda v. Biso Menika
Sect iun 14 of the Butchers Ordinance by a proper authority other than theChairman of the Village Committee of Kanogama or the meat of an animalwhich had been slaughtered in a place appointed under Section 11 ofthe Ordinance but outside the area of the Village Committee ofKanogama. ”
I would, therefore, issue a writ of mandamus against the respondentdirecting him to entertain the application of the petitioner dated 20thFebruary, 1958, and to deal with it in accordance with the provisions ofthe Butchers Ordinance.
The petitioner will be entitled to his costs which are fixed at Rs. 2J<>.
Application allotr'A.