Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010201382024 2025:GAU-AS:15732 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5170/2024 MUJIB ROHMAN AND ANR SON OF LATE ABDUL ROSHID, R/O- SONARI TOWN, WARD NO. 5, P.S.- SONARI, DIST. CHARAIDEO, ASSAM, PIN- 785609. 2: SHEIKH RUSTAM SON OF LATE SHEIKH RAMJAN R/O- SONARI TOWN WARD NO. 5 P.S.- SONARI DIST.- CHARAIDEO ASSAM PIN- 785609 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006. 2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHARAIDEO DIST.- CHARAIDEO ASSAM PIN- 785690. 3:SONARI MUNICIPAL BOARD SONARI Page No.# 2/4 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN DIST.- CHARAIDEO ASSAM PIN- 785690. 4:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER SONARI MUNICIPAL BOARD SONARI DIST.- CHARAIDEO ASSAM PIN- 785690 Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. AM Ahmed Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. M Chetia, For respondent Nos.1 and 2 Ms. U Das For respondent Nos.3 and 4 B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER 19.11.2025 Heard Mr. AM Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. M Chetia, the learned Govt. Advocate, who appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Ms. U Das, the learned Standing Counsel, Sonari Municipal Board, who appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.3 and 4. 2. The petitioners herein are aggrieved by the action on the part of the respondent authorities in not considering the application for issuance of beef shop license and as such, have approached this Court. 3. Pursuant to orders being passed by this Court, the respondent No.3 has filed an affidavit. The contents of paragraph No.7 of the said affidavit is relevant Page No.# 3/4 and as such, the same is reproduced hereinunder: “7. That with regard to the statement made in paragraph No.7 with regard to the writ petition, the answering deponent begs to state that there are various Jain, Hindu, Sikh, Budhist religious institution within the radius of 5 K.M. of SMB, which are situated at the distance from slaughter houses as follows: 1. Kali Mandir is only 30 mtrs. 2. Shiv Mandir is only 300 mtrs. 3. Durga Mandir is only 300 mtrs. 4. Jain Temple is 300 mtrs. 5. Sani Mandir is 400 mtrs. 6. Hindu Mandir (Harisabha) 320 mtrs. 7. Namghar is 800 mtrs. 8. Budha Bihar is 600 mtrs. Within 5 K.M. radius there are more than 50 nos. Namghar, Mandir, Temple and various non-muslim institutions.” 4. In the backdrop of the above-quoted contents of paragraph No.7, this Court also takes note of Section 8 of the Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021, (for short, ‘the Act of 2021’), which is reproduced hereinunder: “8. Prohibition on sale of beef and beef products. - No person shall directly or indirectly sale or offer or expose for sale or buy beef or beef products in any form except at places permitted to do so by the competent authority: Page No.# 4/4 Provided that no such permission shall be granted in such area or areas which are predominantly inhabited by Hindu, Jain, Sikh and other non-beef eating communities or within a radius of 5 kms of any temple, satra or other religious institutions belonging to Hindu Religion or any other institution or area as may be prescribed by the competent authority.” 5. From a perusal of the above-quoted provisions, it would be seen that no permission can be granted in such area or areas which are predominantly inhabited by Hindus, Jain, Sikh and other non-beef eating communities or within a radius of 5 kms of any temple, satra or other religious institutions, belonging to Hindu Religion or any other institution or area as may be prescribed by the competent authority. 6. Applying the proviso to Section 8 of the Act of 2021 to the contents of paragraph No.7, it is seen that the temples as well as Namghars are situated within a close proximity to the location of the shop of the petitioner, wherein the petitioner is seeking renewal of the license. 7. Under such circumstances, no writ can be issued for consideration of the renewal of the license of the petitioner, in view of the proviso to Section 8 of the Act of 2021. 8. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in the instant writ petition and the same stands dismissed. 9. Liberty, however, is given to the petitioner to again apply for a license from any other location which does not infringe the proviso to Section 8 of the Act of 2021. JUDGE Comparing Assistant