HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (PIL) No. 201 of 2025 Mohd. Anas Quraishi ….....Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others ….….Respondents Present:- Mr. C.K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Standing Counsel for the State/respondent nos.1 to 3. Mr. B.D. Pande, Advocate for respondent no.4. Coram: Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) By means of the instant petition, petitioner seeks directions to the respondent no.4/Nagar Palika Parishad, Ramnagar so that the license slaughter house at Khatadhi Ramnagar, District Nainital may be made functional. He also seeks ancillary reliefs. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no.4/Nagar Palika Parishad, Ramnagar had established a slaughter house at Khatadhi, Ramnagar, District Nainital after fulfilling all the norms for its establishment and license for its functional was issued by the Department of Food Safety on 27.09.2021, which is still valid. The Pollution Control Board has also given its consent to establish it. It is only thereafter, on 29.03.2025, the Board of the respondent no.4 decided to run the slaughter house by external source and constituted a Committee. The slaughter house had 2 started running, but suddenly, that stopped and when contacted, Nagar Palika Parishad, Ramnagar told the petitioner that under the oral instructions of the District Magistrate that has been stopped. Therefore, the writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without any reason, the slaughter house, which was functional properly has been stopped by the respondent no.4/Nagar Palika Parishad, Ramnagar, due to which, it causes inconvenience to the large number of society. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent no.4 would submit that initially when the proposal to establish slaughter house at Ramnagar was taken, it was decided that it may be given to some outsource agency, therefore, tenders were floated, but no bid was received. Subsequently, the Nagar Palika Parishad, Ramnagar decided to run the slaughter house by their own, which they did, but in the meanwhile multiple complaints were made. Therefore, the slaughter house stopped running. It is submitted that now, the SDM, Ramnagar had conducted an inquiry. He submitted his Report dated 01.07.2025 to the District Magistrate, Nainital and recommended that the slaughter house may be made functional. He submits that till date the District Magistrate, Nainital has not taken any decision on it. 6. Learned State Counsel would submit that, though it is not evident, as to whether the SDM Ramnagar has forwarded the Report to the District Magistrate, Nainital. He submits that since a report has been shown, the District Magistrate, Nainital will take a decision on it within three weeks. 3 7. The statement given by the learned State Counsel is taken on record. 8. The Report submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent no.4/the Nagar Palika Parishad, Ramnagar is taken on record. 9. The writ petition is disposed of with the directions to the District Magistrate, Nainital to take a decision on the Inquiry Report that has been conducted by the SDM, Ramnagar, District Nainital within a period of three weeks, in accordance with law. (Alok Mahra, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 10.11.2025 Sanjay