Rajasthan High Court Upholds Ban on Meat Shops Near Public Temples | Licences Cancelled for Establishments Within 50 Meters Under Municipal Act
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Rajasthan, Single Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, dismissed writ petitions filed by meat shop proprietors challenging the cancellation of their licences. The Court upheld the orders of the Nagar Nigam Greater, Jaipur, and the District Collector, holding that meat shops located within 50 meters of a temple could not be permitted to operate. Referring to Clause 4 of the Standard Operating Procedure issued under Sections 269 and 340 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, as well as the Food Safety and Standards Regulations, 2011, the Court concluded that such restrictions were legally enforceable and binding
The petitions arose from cancellation of licences granted to the petitioners for operating meat shops in Sukhpuriya, Sanganer, Jaipur. The petitioners were issued show-cause notices dated 01.10.2024 by the Deputy Commissioner, Nagar Nigam Greater, Jaipur, citing violation of the Standard Operating Procedure (SoP) dated 22.03.2021, which prohibits granting or renewal of licences for meat shops situated within 50 meters of a temple or school. After considering the responses, the Deputy Commissioner cancelled their licences by order dated 17.02.2025. Appeals filed by the petitioners under Section 269(4) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, were rejected by the District Collector on 11.03.2025.
The petitioners argued that the temple in question was not a public temple but a private shrine of local shopkeepers, not registered with the Devasthan Department. They contended that reliance on the SoP was misplaced, as it lacked statutory force and was contrary to the provisions of the Act of 2009. They further submitted that the cancellation order ignored information obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005, allegedly showing no objection to grant of licences. They sought quashing of the orders and directions to continue their business.
The respondents, represented by the State and municipal authorities, submitted that the SoP was issued under statutory provisions of Sections 269 and 340 of the Act of 2009. They pointed to Clause 4 of the SoP, which expressly prohibits licensing of meat shops within 50 meters of public temples or schools. It was argued that the temple opposite the shops was situated in an open area of the market, regularly used by the public for worship, and therefore clearly a public temple. They contended that the cancellation was in conformity with law and did not warrant judicial interference.
The legal provisions in focus were Sections 269 and 340 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, and Regulation 2.1.2(1)(5) of the Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Businesses) Regulations, 2011, both of which prescribe a minimum distance of 50 meters between meat shops and places of worship or schools .
The Court stated: “The question for consideration is whether a licence to run a meat shop can be granted within the radius of 50 meters of a place of worship.”
It recorded that the licences were cancelled after notices and that “the Deputy Commissioner took a decision to cancel the licences of the petitioners precisely for the reasons that a meat shop cannot be allowed to run contrary to the provisions contained under the SoP.”
On the petitioners’ contention regarding the private nature of the temple, the Court stated: “Temple means a place, by whatever designation known, used for public religious worship where anyone can worship and the same is accessible to the public at large. Thus, every temple is a public property unless proved otherwise.”
The Court further observed: “If a temple is situated in an open area and is accessible to the public, it will be construed as a public temple. Public temples are considered to be dedicated to the public at large or a section thereof for worship.”
On the reliance on RTI responses, the Court noted: “This Court finds no substance in the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner that as per the information received under the RTI Act, the authorities concerned have expressed their view supporting the grant of licence in favour of the petitioners, as the aforesaid information runs contrary to Clause-4 of the SoP.”
It concluded: “Hence, it is clear that the meat shops of the petitioners are situated within a radius of 50 meters of the temple in question for which legally the licence to run meat shops cannot be granted to them and the same has been rightly cancelled by the respondents.”
“These writ petitions are found to be devoid of merit and the same are hereby rejected.” The court further directed that the stay applications and all pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed. No order as to costs was passed.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Ms. Aradhana Swami, Advocate; Ms. Dhriti Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. G.S. Gill, Additional Advocate General; Mr. S.P.S. Rajawat, Assistant Government Counsel; Mr. Manoj Kumar
Case Title: Aayush Narania v. State of Rajasthan & Connected Matters
Neutral Citation: 2025:RJ-JP:35015
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4957/2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4983/2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4984/2025
Bench: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand
