The Allahabad High Court has held that a regular license under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, is required for a large-scale slaughterhouse operating beyond the prescribed capacity for a 'petty food business' and that a mere registration certificate cannot authorize such activity.

A bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Garima Prashad observed that the Fundamental right to carry on a trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution does not dispense with a valid licensing requirement imposed in the interest of food safety and public health.

The bench thus dismissed a petition challenging the May 2025 order of the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, rejecting the petitioner's application to reopen his slaughterhouse.

The petitioner (Junaid Alam) had also sought reasonable time to modernize the two-unit slaughterhouse and resume its operation.

Petitioner-Alam relied on a Food Safety Registration Certificate dated June 29, 2024, stated to be valid until November 29, 2028. The certificate described the business as "Slaughtering units, Distributor", while its product annexure mentioned frozen beef and frozen poultry meat.

He also relied on GST and Udyam registrations, laboratory test reports and a No Objection Certificate (NOC) said to have been issued by Nagar Nigam, Kanpur Nagar.

He argued that these documents permitted the operation of the two slaughtering units and that the authorities ought to have afforded him a hearing and reasonable time for modernization.

The State, however, submitted that the registration certificate was not the regular license required for the proposed scale of slaughtering.

It was pointed out that the petitioner's application for a new State license disclosed a proposed capacity of 20 large animals and the application was returned for the removal of deficiencies. Thus, no regular license had been granted when the District Magistrate passed the impugned order.

High Court's observations

The High Court examined Section 31 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, noting that Section 31(1) prohibits commencement or carrying on of a food business except under a license, while Section 31(2) provides an exception for, inter alia, a petty food manufacturer, who is nevertheless required to register.

The Court referred to Regulation 1.2.1(4) of the Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Businesses) Regulations, 2011, which treats slaughtering activity as a petty food business only where its capacity is two large animals, ten small animals or 50 poultry birds per day or less. Subject to that exception, Regulation 2.1.2 requires a valid license.

Finding that the petitioner's proposed capacity of 20 large animals exceeded this limit, the Court observed thus:

"The registration certificate dated 29.06.2024 was insufficient for the scale at which the petitioner proposed to operate the slaughter house. That capacity is beyond the limit prescribed for a petty food business. A regular licence under Section 31(1) of the Act read with Regulation 2.1.2 of the Regulations, 2011 was, therefore, required".

The Court also made clear that the petitioner's application for a regular license did not itself authorize operation of the slaughterhouse.

The state license application had been returned for the removal of deficiencies. The Court observed thus:

"Its acknowledgement proves only the submission of an application and does not authorise the activity for which the licence was sought".

The Court added that the petitioner's GST and Udyam registrations, laboratory reports and municipal NOC were ancillary documents and did not replace the license required under the Act and the Regulations.

It also noted that the District Magistrate's order did not cancel any subsisting regular license. Rather, the reopening request was rejected because the regular license and other permissions required for the proposed activity had not been obtained.

The Court consequently observed:

"In the absence of the required licence, no direction permitting the petitioner to reopen and operate the slaughter house can be issued".

Referring to the Supreme Court's directions in Laxmi Narain Modi v. Union of India, the High Court noted that unauthorized or unlicensed slaughterhouses were directed to be closed and permitted to function only after obtaining the necessary license and complying with the applicable Rules and Regulations.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.

However, the Court left it open to the petitioner to remove the deficiencies and pursue the State license application or submit a fresh application, as permissible in law, with the prescribed documents and approvals. Any such application would be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law, the Court said.

The Court made no finding on allegations of police harassment, noting that no relief based on those allegations had been sought in the petition.