The Allahabad High Court has held that an FSSAI registration certificate issued to a petty food business cannot substitute for the regular licence required to operate a slaughterhouse beyond the capacity limits prescribed under food safety regulations.
The bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Garima Prashad dismissed a writ petition challenging the District Magistrate’s refusal to permit the reopening of a slaughterhouse in Kanpur Nagar. The Court found that the proposed slaughtering capacity was substantially higher than the statutory limit applicable to a petty food business.
Buy Now: E-Magazine: Supreme Court Judgments on GST (2017–2025)
The petitioner had challenged an order dated May 22, 2025, passed by the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, rejecting his application for reopening the slaughterhouse. He also sought reasonable time to modernise the two-unit facility and permission to resume its operations.
The dispute had previously reached the High Court in another writ petition. On April 28, 2025, the Court directed the District Magistrate to consider the petitioner’s application dated April 4, 2025, examine his complaint regarding the closure of the establishment and decide his request for reopening within four weeks.
The petitioner relied upon a Food Safety Registration Certificate issued on June 29, 2024, which was stated to be valid until November 29, 2028. The certificate described the nature of the business as “Slaughtering units, Distributor”, while the accompanying product annexure referred to frozen beef and frozen poultry meat.
He also placed reliance on his GST registration, Udyam registration, laboratory test reports and a No Objection Certificate allegedly issued by the Nagar Nigam, Kanpur Nagar.
According to the petitioner, these documents permitted him to operate two slaughtering units. It was argued that the authorities should have provided him an opportunity of hearing and reasonable time to modernise the facility before preventing him from carrying on the business. Allegations of harassment by police personnel were also raised.
Application Proposed Capacity of 20 Large Animals
The State opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioner had been given a personal hearing on May 16, 2025. The District Magistrate had also considered reports dated May 14 and May 15, 2025, before deciding the application.
The State contended that the document dated June 29, 2024, was merely a registration certificate and not the regular food business licence required for operating a slaughterhouse of the capacity proposed by the petitioner.
The petitioner had submitted an online application for a new State licence on March 19, 2025. That application disclosed a proposed capacity of 20 large animals. However, the competent authority returned the application on April 27, 2025, for removal of deficiencies. Consequently, no regular licence had been granted when the District Magistrate passed the impugned order.
The State also relied on a Government Order dated July 7, 2017, dealing with assessment by the local authority and approval of a detailed project report based on the proposed slaughtering capacity.
Registration and Licence Are Distinct Statutory Authorisations
The High Court examined Section 31 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and noted that Section 31(1) prohibits any person from commencing or carrying on a food business without a licence.
Section 31(2), however, provides a limited exception for petty food manufacturers and certain other small food businesses. Such operators are required to obtain registration instead of a regular licence.
The Court held that registration and licensing are two distinct forms of statutory authorisation. Whether a food business can operate merely on the basis of registration depends on the nature and scale of its activities.
Under Regulation 1.2.1(4) of the Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Businesses) Regulations, 2011, slaughtering activity qualifies as a petty food business only where the daily capacity does not exceed two large animals, ten small animals or 50 poultry birds.
Where the slaughtering capacity exceeds those limits, Regulation 2.1.2 requires the operator to obtain a valid licence.
In the present case, the State-licence application disclosed that the petitioner proposed to slaughter 20 large animals. The Court observed that this proposed capacity was far beyond the limit of two large animals applicable to a petty food business.
“The registration certificate dated 29.06.2024 was insufficient for the scale at which the petitioner proposed to operate the slaughter house,” the Court held.
It consequently concluded that the petitioner required a regular licence under Section 31(1) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, read with Regulation 2.1.2 of the 2011 Regulations.
Filing a Licence Application Does Not Authorise Operations
The Bench further clarified that merely submitting an application for a State licence does not authorise an applicant to undertake the activity for which the licence has been sought.
The petitioner’s application was returned for the removal of deficiencies and had not resulted in the grant of a licence. Its acknowledgement could only establish that an application had been submitted, the Court said.
It could not be treated as permission to operate the slaughterhouse.
The Court also rejected the contention that GST registration, Udyam registration, laboratory reports and the municipal NOC were sufficient to permit the business to operate.
It held that these were only ancillary documents and could not replace the licence specifically required under the Food Safety and Standards Act and the applicable regulations.
Article 19(1)(g) Does Not Override Food-Safety Licensing Requirements
Addressing the petitioner’s right to carry on business, the High Court observed that Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution does not exempt a person from complying with valid licensing conditions imposed to protect food safety and public health.
“In the absence of the required licence, no direction permitting the petitioner to reopen and operate the slaughter house can be issued,” the Bench said.
The District Magistrate’s order had rejected the reopening request because the petitioner had not obtained the regular licence and other permissions required for the proposed activity. It did not cancel any existing regular licence held by the petitioner.
Therefore, the petitioner’s request for time to modernise the unit or rectify defects in an existing licence did not arise at that stage.
Supreme Court Directions on Unlicensed Slaughterhouses Referred To
The High Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s directions in Laxmi Narain Modi v. Union of India and Others.
In its order dated March 6, 2014, the Supreme Court had directed that unauthorised or unlicensed slaughterhouses be closed and permitted to function only after obtaining the necessary licences and complying with the applicable rules and regulations.
Those directions were issued to ensure compliance with the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules, 2001, and the environmental norms governing slaughterhouses.
The High Court consequently held that the petitioner’s registration certificate could not substitute for a regular licence and the other statutory approvals required to operate a slaughterhouse at the proposed capacity.
The Bench dismissed the writ petition but granted the petitioner liberty to remove the deficiencies and pursue the pending State-licence application. He was also permitted to submit a fresh application, if allowed under the law, along with the prescribed documents and approvals.
The Court directed that any such application must be considered by the competent authority independently, on its own merits and in accordance with law.
Regarding the allegations against police personnel, the Court noted that the petitioner had not sought any specific relief based on those allegations. It, therefore, declined to adjudicate them or record any finding.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
