Absence of stay in appeal does not justify administrative refusal to issue statutory NOCs and renewals.

The Petitioner, a partnership firm, operates a slaughterhouse on land donated to Respondent No. 1 (Nagar Parishad).

In 2011, the Petitioner was granted a lease via public auction, subsequently extended to 30 years by a 2012 agreement.

Following political opposition, the Nagar Parishad passed Resolution No. 61 on 01.03.2017, cancelling the agreement and withdrawing NOCs.

The Petitioner filed Civil Suit No. 3 of 2017; although initially dispossessed, the High Court restored possession via WP No. 5580 of 2018.

On 31.01.2022, the Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the Petitioner, granting a perpetual injunction.

Despite the decree, Respondents refused to issue a fresh NOC for the appointment of veterinary doctors—a prerequisite for APEDA approval—citing the pendency of Civil Appeal No. 82 of 2022 and the 2017 cancellation resolution.

1. Whether a Writ Petition under Article 226 is maintainable despite the availability of alternative statutory remedies under the 1965 Act.

2. Whether the pendency of a Civil Appeal without an express stay order justifies the administrative refusal to comply with a trial court decree.

3. Whether the Nagar Parishad’s refusal to issue an NOC based on public opposition and alleged lease infirmities constitutes an arbitrary exercise of power.

The Court applied the principle that writ jurisdiction is a rule of discretion, not a bar, where action is palpably arbitrary or violates fundamental rights, as held in *Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks* and *Harbanslal Sahnia v. IOCL*.

It applied Order XLI Rule 5 of the CPC and *Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. Federal Motors (P) Ltd.*, establishing that an appeal does not stay a decree unless specifically ordered.

Section 49(2) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils Act, 1965, was cited regarding the obligatory duty of councils to provide slaughterhouses.

The doctrine from *Mohinder Singh Gill v. CEC* was used to hold that administrative orders must stand on their own recorded reasons.

Finally, *Andi Mukta Sadguru v. V.R. Rudani* was applied regarding the wide reach of Mandamus to enforce public duties.

The Court reasoned that the Respondents’ refusal to issue the NOC was founded on irrelevant considerations.

It noted that under Order XLI Rule 5 of the CPC, the 2022 decree remains binding and operative since the Appellate Court granted no stay.

The Court rejected the argument that the Petitioner should have challenged the 2017 resolution under Section 308 of the 1965 Act, holding that a municipal body cannot use internal resolutions to bypass a judicial decree.

Furthermore, the Court found the refusal arbitrary because it prevented the Petitioner from fulfilling statutory health and pollution safety requirements (appointment of veterinarians), which are public law duties under Section 49(2) of the Act.

The Court emphasized that administrative decisions cannot be based on "amorphous resentment" or political pressure but must adhere to the legal reality of the subsisting decree.

The Court quashed the communication dated 17.02.2025.

It directed Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to issue the NOC for appointing veterinary doctors within two weeks.

It further directed the Nagar Parishad to process renewals of municipal permissions necessary for operation, provided other statutory consents (MPCB/FSSAI) are valid.

Respondent No. 4 and Respondent No. 5 (APEDA) were directed to process the Petitioner's requests expeditiously in light of the decree and this order.

All contractual contentions remain open for the pending Civil Appeal No. 82 of 2022.