Written by: Ishita Pal (Intern)
Edited by: Anubhav Yadav (Content Head & Developer)
Last week, the Allahabad High Court quashed the order given by a food safety officer who cancelled the license of a retailer named Ikrar Husain under The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. This otherwise can be valid up to 21st January 2022.
On the basis of selling Buffalo meat, the license of the retailer was cancelled. Here, the petitioner Husain was hurting the sentiments of a community. The Petitioner and the co-accused were arrested silently in the morning while they had been found cutting pieces of Buffalo’s meat. The counsel for the petitioner was Adv. Rakesh Pati Tiwari and the counsel for the respondents was C.S.C. In this case, the present fact for quashing the order was a violation of principles of natural justice towards the people of India.
Case name: Ikrar Husain VS State of UP & Others
The Facts Observed By the Court
- The petitioner and the co-accused were selling the Buffalo meet which results in hurting the sentiments of specific community.
- They cut the Buffalo every morning in the small or wee hours which was an issue to take a step.
- Scientists believed that cows are the only animals that exhale oxygen in the environment which helps people every day for getting oxygen. Cows and Buffaloes, mainly cows are considered as national animals under the light of the fact that cows are a part of the culture of India.
- It can’t be a human’s fundamental right to cut and eat Cows and Buffaloes.
- In the morning, the environment is always pure and full of fresh air with oxygen. At that time, the petitioner cut down the buffaloes for eating purposes. That’s a very bad step towards humanity from them.
- The standing learned counsel showed documents in which there was no material under which the petitioner got a right of speaking.
- It was an order which violates the rights under the principles of natural justice of people in India.
- After observing all the facts mentioned above, the court quashes the Govt. order.
- The court said that the order which was impugned, was passed while violating the principles of natural justice. So, they first should give a chance to the petitioner to speak.
- Without any notice, they passed the impugned order: so at least the petitioner also should get a right to be heard.
- The bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Deepak Verma said according to the supplied documents of the learned standing counsel that the plea had no denial into it and not even a single material can be shown under which the petitioner and co-accused got a chance to speak and to be heard.
- The bench holds that the order passed with a violation of natural justice for not giving them their right to speak.
- So, the order was quashed by the bench while giving the respondents liberty.
- The liberty towards the respondents is to pass a fresh order and giving the petitioner a chance to be noticed and heard.