Bombay High Court: In the present case, various writ petitions were filed, challenging various communications issued by the Director of Archaeology and Museums, Bombay, the Superintendent of Police, Kolhapur and the Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur, wherein these communications sought to ban slaughtering of animals and birds at Vishalgad, Taluka Sahuwadi, District Kolhapur. The Division Bench of B.P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, JJ., opined that for the festival of Bakri Eid, on 17-06-2024, and Urus which was till 21-06-2024, the slaughtering of animals by the petitioners could be permitted. However, the Court clarified that the actual killing or sacrifices of animals or birds shall only take place in the closed premises at Gat No. 19 which was a private land owned by Mubarak Usman Mujawar.
Background
The said communications justified the alleged ban stating that slaughtering of animals was taking place in the Vishalgad protected monument, and as per Rule 8(c) of the Maharashtra Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1962 (‘1962 Rules’), there was prohibition to cook and consume food in the premises of a protected monument. Slaughtering of animals was a part of the process of cooking food and, therefore, the same was prohibited. The other justification in the said communications was that the Bombay High Court (At Aurangabad) had strictly prohibited the slaughter of animals and birds in the name of God and Goddesses at any public place, vide its judgment and order dated 23-07-1998 passed in Writ Petition No. 5157 of 1996.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court took note of Rule 8 of the 1962 Rules and observed that there was a prohibition of certain actions within a “protected monument” and cooking and consumption of food was one of the prohibitions in a “protected monument”. The Court opined that as per Rule 8(c), except with the prior permission of the Director or the Archaeological Officer, cooking and consumption of food in the protected monument was barred.
The Court noted that vide Notification dated 27-01-1999, the Vishalgad Fort was declared as a “protected monument” and it was mentioned that the total protected area was 333 acres and 19 gunthas. The Court stated that the Monuments Act, 1960 (‘the 1960 Act’) itself makes a distinction between what was a “protected area” and what was a “protected monument”, which were defined under Sections 2(10) and 2(11) of the 1960 Act, respectively. The Court opined that as per Notification dated 27-01-1999, the “protected monument” was the Vishalgad Fort and not the entire area.
The Court noted that even the Assistant Director, Department of Archaeology, Pune, had made a clear distinction between the “protected area” and the “protected monument”, in his Affidavit.
The Court opined that in the protected area, namely, 333 acres 19 gunthas, there were about 575 people and about 107 families residing in Vishalgad and if the entire area of 333 acres and 19 gunthas was the “protected monument”, then under Rule 8(c), these 107 families, residing within the area of 333 acres 19 gunthas, would not be allowed either to cook or consume food. This would mean that these 107 families would either have to starve or go outside their homes (beyond 333 acres 19 gunthas) and cook and consume their food. The Court opined that this interpretation would be absurd.
The Court stated that Rule 8(c) only applied to prohibition of certain acts in a “protected monument” and not in the “protected area”. The Court also noted that the Notification dated 27-01-1999 was issued in January 1999 and since then slaughter activities had been carried on by the petitioners, till the impugned communications were issued in February 2023 and for 24 years, the authorities did not think that the slaughter being carried on by the petitioners was either in violation of the 1960 Act or the 1962 Rules.
The Court thus opined that at least for the festival of Bakri Eid, on 17-06-2024, and Urus which is till 21-06-2024, the slaughtering of animals by the petitioners could be permitted. However, the Court clarified that the actual killing or sacrifices of animals or birds shall only take place in the closed premises at Gat No. 19 which was a private land owned by Mubarak Usman Mujawar. The killing of animals and birds certainly should not be done in an open place or in a public place.
The Court also clarified that the interim relief granted by this order, was only for relieving the petitioner from the ban imposed by the impugned Communications and if any other permission was required by any other law, the same would have to be obtained by the petitioner and if they failed to do so, they would face the consequences.
The matter would next be listed on 11-07-2024.
[Hajrat Peer Malik Rehan Mira Saheb Dargah, Vishalgad v. state of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 7121 of 2023, Order dated 14-06-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Advocate S. B. Talekar with Madhuri Ayyappan i/b. Talekar & Associates; Vaibhav Ugle with Roshan Chavan.
For the Respondents: S. D. Vyas, Addl. G. P. with Y. D. Patil, AGP; Advocate Shridhar Patil; Sanjeev Gorwadkar, Sr. Advocate with Shrirang Katneshwarkar, Ameya Mahadik, Manjiri Parasnis with Rutvik Joshi, Shashank Dueby, for the Intervener.
