P L D 1975 Karachi 678 (PLP)

Khuda Bux Omrani for Respondents. Advocate‑General (Sind) on Court Notice. Date of hearing: 6th March 1975. This revision application under section 115, C. P. C. is directed against the order of the VI Additional District Judge, Karachi, dated 30‑4‑1974, removing the condition imposed by the trial Judge while granting a temporary injunction against the Appellant.

2. The respondents Nos. 2 to 149 are butchers and are members of the Meat and Cattle Merchant Association, the respondent No.

1. They carry on business as meat sellers, for which purpose they take their animals for slaughter to the K. M. C. Slaughter House at Landhi, Karachi. As the Chief Meat Inspector at the Slaughter House was objecting to the removal of the organs of the slaughtered animals, such as offal, visceras, entrails, intestines, lungs, womb. stomach, liver etc., on the alleged ground that they were, "refuse" and "offensive matter", the respondents butchers filed a suit No. 130/74 in the Court of VIII Civil Judge, First Class, Karachi. Therein, they prayed for declaration that the aforesaid organs of the slaughtered animals are the exclusive property of the respondents which they are entitled to collect and remove for sale both for human consumption as well as for use as poultry feed and other purposes. Along with the suit they applied for a temporary injunction to restrain the K. M. C. from interfering with their valuable right to remove and dispose of the same. The plea of the K. M. C. was that conceding that the organs of the slaughtered animals belonged exclusively to the butchers, nevertheless they could not be permitted to be removed if they are found unfit for human consumption. This plea was, accepted by the learned Civil Judge. Accordingly, he granted a conditional order of temporary injunction against the K. M. C. restraining it from collecting the organs of the slaughtered animals "in case they are found fit for human consumption."

3. The respondents appealed against the condition imposed by the Civil Judge, which according to them, nullified the effect of the injunction order. On appeal, the learned Additional District Judge held that once the animal on inspection by the Veterinary Surgeon has been declared fit for slaughter, no second inspection to declare the organs of the slaughtered animal as fit for human consumption, is provided for by the rules. He also rejected the submission on behalf of the K. M. C. that the aforesaid organs of the slaughtered animal were included in the expression "offal" which is defined as part of "refuse" in section 2(51) of the Sind People's Local Government Ordinance, 1972. Accordingly, he deleted the condition viz. "fit for human consumption" imposed by the Civil Judge as unnecessary and :as nullifying the effect of the grant of the injunction and allowed the respon dents' appeal. The K. M. C. has filed the present revision against the afore said order.

4. In support of the application, Mr. Muhammad Nasir Khan, learned .counsel for the K. M. C. referred to rule 7 in Chapter XII‑A of the K. M. C. ,Rule Book page 238 relating to the regulations of slaughterhouses framed ,under the former Karachi Municipal Act, 1933. The said rule 7 reads as ,follows: "If any animal which has been passed by the Veterinary Surgeon or his Sub‑Inspector shall subsequently develop any disease, or is found to have been diseased after slaughter, or if the meat thereof is unfit for food it shall be seized or disposed of under section 173 of the Act but the owner or person in possession thereof, shall not be liable to pro secution." His contention is that this rule provides for a second or post‑mortem inspec tion and that upon such inspection, if it is found that the organs of the slaughtered animal have been diseased, they would not be fit for human .consumption and the K. M. C. has the power to seize and dispose of the same.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Khuda Bux Umrani, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that the said rule is void and it is repugnant to the West Pakistan Animals Slaughter Control Act, 1963, which does not provide ‑for a second or post‑mortem examination of the slaughtered animals. In this .connection, he cited the case of Haji Hashmatullah and 9 others v. Karachi Municipal Corporation and 3 others (P L D 1971 Kar. 514) for the principle that rules which ,deviate from the statute are repugnant and are void to the extent of the repugnancy. That case, however, was concerned with an altogether different .rule framed under the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960 and. there fore, is not relevant.

6. I have considered the rule 7 and in my opinion, it is not inconsistent .or repugnant to the West Pakistan Animals Slaughter Control Act, 1963 That rule provides for declaring the carcass of an animal and its meat as unfit for human consumption, which animal although passed as fit for slaughter by the Veterinary Officer, is found to be diseased after slaughter. The rule 7 is saved by section 4(2)(a) of the Sind People's Local Government Ordinance, 1972 after the repeal of the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960 and, as .no contrary provision exists in the West Pakistan Animals Slaughter Control .Act, 1963, there is no case of repugnancy. The position therefore, is that if B .an animal which has been passed for slaughter is found to be diseased after slaughter, the Veterinary Officer may declare it as unfit for human Consump tion and that would also include the organs of such a diseased animal as well. Such a case may be rare, but it is not impossible that an animal may have been mistakenly passed as fit for slaughter, which after slaughter is found to be diseased. The carcass of such a diseased animal including its organs is "refuse" as defined in section 2(51) of the Sind People's Local Government .Ordinance, 1972 and it is the duty of the Municipality to remove such refuse, which is its property as is provided in Part I, Schedule II, rules 3 and 4 of the .said Ordinance. However, before such power is exercised, that fact must be recorded in the relevant register to enable an aggrieved owner of the animal. to seek the prescribed relief from the higher authorities.

7. It will be seen, therefore, that rule 7 provides for an exceptional case :and that it does not make a second or post‑mortem examination incumbent C `before the butchers are permitted to remove the organs of the slaughtered .animals. In other words, the butchers are entitled to remove the organs of their slaughtered animals, as their exclusive property and not conditionally upon the organs being declared fit for human consumption. Therefore, in my opinion,, the Additional District Judge rightly ordered the deletion of the condition "if found fit for human consumption" from the order of temporary injunction passed by the Civil Judge. No exception can be taken to the legality of the impugned order on this ground. In my opinion, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity. With these observations I would dismiss this revision application with no order as to costs. K. B. A. Petition dismissed.