Thangchunghnung vs State Of Manipur

 [1] Heard Mr. Kh.Chonjohn, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N.Kumarjit, learned Advocate General for the State

respondents.

[2] The PIL has been filed challenging the Annexure-A/4 which reads as follows:-

“DISTRICT COUNCIL ADMINISTRATION

Office of the

AUTONOMOUS DISTRICT COUNCIL, CHURACHANDPUR

ORDERS

Churachandpur, the 28th September, 2020

No. 8/16/ADCC/99:/103 In supersession of all previous orders issued in this regard, the Executive Committee, Autonomous District Council,

Churachandpur in its sitting held on 22.09.2020 hereby revised the rate of meat as below for strict compliance by all butchers/meat sellers operated

within the jurisdiction of Autonomous District Council, Churachandpur and general public:

I. BEEF:

a. Flesh:

b. Mix:

II.PORK:

Rs. 450/- per kg.

Rs. 380/- per kg.

Rs. 380/- per kg.

All Vendors/peddlers are also instructed not to charge more than Rs. 10/- per kg from the above rates. Butcher/meat seller selling meats higher

than the revised rate within the jurisdiction of Autonomous District Council, Churachandpur shall be punishable as per section 49 of the Manipur (Hill

Areas) District Councils Act, 1971.

All butchers/meat sellers shall obtain license from ADCC Town Office after getting “NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATEâ€​ from the concerned

Village Authority. No butcher shall be allowed to sell meat without obtaining valid license from ADCC.

Further, all butchers/meat sellers shall sell meats at locations permitted by the concerned Village Authority only for the purpose.

This order shall come into force with immediate effect.

(Lalthazam, MCS)

 Chief Executive Officer,

 Autonomous District Council, Churachandpur

 Churachandpur, The 28th September, 2020â€​

[3] The grievance of the PIL primarily appears to be that the costs of food items mentioned therein are very exorbitant and therefore, it has to be

regulated by the orders of the Court. Be that as it may, prior to issuance of the impugned order, a representation dated 14th August, 2020 has been

given to the concerned authority. However, after the impugned order was passed by the respondent No.6, there is no representation to the higher

authority to reconsider the issue on the lines expressed by the petitioner. The petitioner is an Advocate and is well aware of the rules relating to filing

of a PIL. In any event, liberty is given to the petitioner to seek remedy to approach the higher authority before approaching this Court.

 [4] PIL stands disposed of with the above direction.