Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18241-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3096 of 2025 Petitioner :- Sarfraz Ahmad Khan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayat Raj Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- R.B.S. Rathaur Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajeev Narayan Pandey Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. Supplementary affidavit filed by petitioner is taken on record. Heard Shri R.B.S. Rathaur, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Rajeev Narayan Pandey, learned Counsel for the Zila Panchayat. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.03.2025 passed by the Additional Chief Officer, Zila Panchayat, Ayodhya communicating the decision not to renew the petitioner's application for organizing a cattle market for the year 2025-26 on his private land, on account of non- receipt of No Objection Certificate from the Animal Husbandry Department. The license of the petitioner has expired on 31.03.2025. The record reveals that on 14.03.2025, notice was given to the petitioner pointing out as many as 13 deficiencies or irregularities which were a hindrance in renewing the license of the petitioner. The said deficiencies / irregularities were noticed in the inspection dated 09.02.2025 by the officials of the Animal Husbandry Department. The petitioner responded to the said notice vide his reply dated 21.02.2025. After receipt of the said reply, a letter dated 25.02.2025 was issued to the petitioner, inter alia, referring to the response of the petitioner dated 21.02.2025, further stating, that after removal of the deficiencies / irregularities, High Level Committee would again conduct an inspection of the site, where the cattle market is proposed to be organised. The petitioner claims that the deficiencies had already been removed, as is mentioned in the response dated 21.02.2025. Further, it is contended that the report dated 09.02.2025 which has been placed before the Court today by Shri Rajeev Narayan Pandey, learned Counsel for the Zila Panchayat, Ayodhya, was never furnished to the petitioner, which was necessary, as it was an adverse material. Learned Counsel for the Zila Panchayat says that till date no High Powered Committee has been constituted to conduct the fresh inspection, as is referred in the letter dated 25.02.2025. On being confronted, Shri Rajeev Narayan Pandey, learned Counsel for the Zila Panchayat says that this Committee is to be constituted by the Animal Husbandry Department and the inspection is also to be conducted by the said department. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the Animal Husbandry Department should conduct an inspection, as is referred in the letter dated 25.02.2025, taking into consideration, the response of the petitioner dated 21.02.2025, a copy of which shall be provided by the Zila Panchayat, Ayodhya to the concerned official of the Animal Husbandry Department. Once the inspection is conducted, a report in this regard shall be submitted by the concerned official of the Animal Husbandry Department to the Chief Veterinary Officer, Ayodhya, who is the authority competent for considering issuance of No Objection Certificate. If the N.O.C. is granted by the Chief Veterinary Officer, Ayodhya, then the Zila Panchayat shall proceed to consider the renewal of petitioner's application within 10 days of receipt of N.O.C.. However, if it is not granted, then the entire material including the enquiry report of the High Powered Committee constituted by the Animal Husbandry Department shall be communicated to the petitioner, giving reasons as to why the license cannot be renewed and asking him to show cause within a reasonable time say 15 days. If the petitioner respond, the same shall be considered and a decision be taken on his application for renewal of his license. If he does not responds, then such decision will have to be taken and communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner can, thereafter, pursue the legal remedies prescribed in law. As the period of license granted to the petitioner has already expired on 31.03.2025, therefore, the impugned order dated 26.03.2025 shall abide by the fresh decision to be taken as aforesaid, meaning thereby, if it is found that the petitioner's license is liable to be renewed, then the impugned order shall no longer be operative from the date of renewal, however, if the position is found to be otherwise, then the matter shall rest as it is, with liberty aforesaid to the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Order Date :- 2.4.2025/Lokesh Kumar [Om Prakash Shukla, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.] Digitally signed by :- LOKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench