The Gujarat High Court closed a plea moved by slaughter house/meat-shop owners against an order issued by Radhanpur Municipality directing them to close their premises for four months on account of a Jain religious leader residing in the town for the said time period. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 302]

This, after the counsel for the municipality submitted that there was no provision under the Gujarat Municipalities Act under which such order could be issued and assured that it will not press its order and will not take any coercive steps against the petitioners. 

The court was hearing a plea moved by bunch of slaughter house/meat-shop owners, who had challenged an order passed by Radhanpur Municipality directing closure of their businesses involving running of slaughter houses, selling of meat, fish and poultry and restaurants selling non-vegetarian cuisine for a period of 4 months calling it an unreasonable restriction violative of articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

The petitioners claimed that they have appropriate licenses to carry out business. The Municipality asked the petitioners to close their shops for 4 months on the ground that a senior leader of Jain religion is going to stay in the limits of Radhanpur Town for four months on account of a religious occasion–Paryushan–of the community in question. 

Various senior leaders and devotees of the religious leader, who is going to reside in the Radhanpur Town, would be visiting it between a five month period and since the business being carried out by the petitioners could hurt the religious feelings of such persons, therefore, it was directed that the business of a slaughter houses should remain closed for this time. 

It is also stated that in case the petitioners would not close the business, then appropriate action under the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 would be taken against them.

During the hearing the counsel for the Municipality submitted before Justice Nikhil S Kariel there may not be any provision in the Gujarat Municipalities Act whereby the Chief Officer could have directed the respondents to not carry out the businesses for four months.

"Hence, learned advocate Mr. Sanchela, under instructions, submit that the Municipality would not be pressing the impugned decisions dated 17.08.2026 and that there would not take any coercive steps taken against the petitioners in view thereof," the court noted in its order.

 Considering this submission, the petitioners did not press their petition and sought to withdraw it with liberty to approach appropriate forum in case of any further decision of the like nature.

The court thus disposed of the plea.