1989 PLP 2878 (MLD)

AJMAL MIAN, C.J.--By this petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:- "(a) declare that the petitioners, butchers slaughtering their animals in the slaughter houses maintained by the respondent are the rightful owners of the blood of animals as their own property. (b)-declare that the action of respondent in restraining or interfering with their right of collecting the blood of slaughtered animals from respective platform and inside the slaughter house is unlawful and of no legal effect. (c) the respondents be restrained from their acts of collecting and auctioning the blood of slaughtered animals directly or indirectly or removing it without the consent of the petitioners, butchers. (d) cost of this petition be awarded, and any other relief this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of this case be granted."

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that the petitioners are butchers; they use slaughter house constructed and maintained by the respondent. The grievance of the petitioners is that they slaughter the animals, the respondent does not allow them to dispose of the blood as their property but the blood is auctioned by the respondent.

3. In support of the above petition, Mr. M.A. Kazi, learned counsel of the petitioners, has referred to an unreported judgment of Division Bench of the Lahore High Court dated 30-7-1974 in L.P.A. No.32/72 in the case of Shabir Ahmed and others v. Lahore Corporation, Lahore through its Chairman and the case of Ahmed Ali and others v. Lahore Municipal Corporation, Lahore, reported in 1969 SCMR

191. A Division Bench of the Lahore High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the above reported judgment while refusing leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court have held that under bye-law No.28 of the Lahore Municipal Slaughter House bye-laws, 1965, the respondent Lahore Corporation had no right to prevent butchers from removing the blood as under the above bye-law the blood, unwanted offals, refuse and other offensive matter left at the slaughter house premises were liable to be removed under the supervision and control of the Superintendent of the slaughter -house-to a place fixed for that purpose by the Municipal Medical Officer of Health, which does not authorise the Corporation to prevent the butchers from removing the blood.

4. In our view, the above cases are not relevant for the purpose of the present petition as under the Sind Local Government Ordinance, 1979 in clause (55) of Section 3, the term "refuse" has been defined as follows:- `refuse' includes rubbish, broken bricks, mortar, broken glass, offal, night soil, sweeping, carcasses of animals, deposit of Sewerage, waste blood, horns, hoofs, bones and meat waste and any other offensive matter.

5. It is evident from the perusal of the above quoted definition of the word "refuse" that it includes waste blood, whereas under Schedule 11 part II one of the compulsory functions assigned to a corporation is removal, collection and disposal of refuse. Since the waste blood has been included in the definition of ' refuse, the respondent Corporation is under statutory obligation to remove the same though in that process it earns money while disposing of the waste blood of, the animals.

6. In this view of the matter, the above petition has no merits and it is` dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.0 M.Y.H./A-560/K Petition dismissed.