Srinagar, Sept 4: A division bench issued notice to the three officers after they were pleaded as party respondents apparently to achieve the desired tangible results with regard to the issues raised in the Public Interest Litigation , the bench was hearing.
Portioner in PIL is seeking judicial intervention to curb the sale, storage, distribution, and transportation of rotten, unhygienic, and unsafe meat, poultry, and fish products within Jammu and Kashmir.
Advocate Jahangir Ganai as Amicus Curiae submitted that the Government’s response was not sufficient. He said the issue is serious and must be taken seriously. There is an indispensable requirement for implementation of the Food Safety Act and Municipal Corporation Act for achieving the desired tangible results.
The Court also impleaded Commissioner Secretary, Animal Husbandry, Commissioner Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department and Commissioner, Sales Tax in the PIL and issued them notices for their response.
The authorities were impleaded as party respondents after there was consensus among parties that their role was important enough to help curb the menace the PIL is projecting.
Advocate Shafaqat Nazir representing the petitioner submitted that the government stated that testing reports are standard But being standard is not enough, it must be safe.
The authorities are silent over whether the reports are safe or unsafe, he added.
The court also took note of a news report regarding seizure of 21 quintals of synthetic cheese and expired oil and directed the concerned authorities to file a reply to the same. It also expressed displeasure as Commissioners of Municipal Corporations of Srinagar and Jammu are yet to file their replies to the PIL.
The Bench disagreed with the submission by senior Advocate General Mohsin Qadri for 10 days’ time to file the response. 10 days is a long date, this is not less than a pandemic.
Whatever is happening is not good, let them also sacrifice their sleep and file response within time “the bench observed, orally.
The Court listed the matter for further hearing on September 10.
|