Municipal Authorities Cannot Treat Decree As Non-Existent Merely Because Appeal Is Pending Without Stay: Bombay High Court

The Court observed that so long as the decree remains operative, municipal authorities are bound to act in accordance with it and cannot defeat its effect through unilateral administrative action.

The Court was hearing a writ petition challenging the refusal of the Nagar Parishad to issue a No Objection Certificate required for the appointment of veterinary doctors and for regulatory approvals necessary to operate a slaughterhouse facility.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Hiten S. Venegavkar observed that “Respondent Nos.1 to 3 cannot, in administrative exercise, treat the decree as non-existent or inoperative merely because they have filed an appeal. Their administrative decision must proceed on the legal reality that the decree stands and governs the parties’ rights and obligations until stayed or reversed by higher courts.”

Background

The petitioner partnership firm operates an agro-based enterprise in Dondaicha, Dhule district. The municipal council had earlier leased out a slaughterhouse facility constructed on municipal land to the petitioner following a public tender process. The petitioner took possession in January 2011 and subsequently entered into agreements with the municipal council for running the facility.

According to the petitioner, it made substantial investments in the facility and obtained several regulatory approvals, including pollution control permissions, factory licence, food safety licence, APEDA-related documentation, GST registration and other statutory certifications required for operation.

Disputes later arose between the petitioner and the municipal council following objections and local opposition regarding the functioning of the slaughterhouse. In 2017, the municipal body passed a resolution cancelling the agreement and withdrawing earlier permissions granted to the petitioner.

The petitioner instituted a civil suit seeking protection of its possession over the slaughterhouse premises. During the pendency of the proceedings, earlier interim orders were modified, and the premises were sealed by the municipal authorities. Subsequent appellate proceedings and writ petitions resulted in directions from the High Court restoring the status quo ante and directing the de-sealing of the premises.

Ultimately, the civil suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner, granting a perpetual injunction protecting its peaceful possession of the property. The municipal council thereafter filed a civil appeal against the decree, but no stay was granted.

Despite the decree and the absence of any stay, the municipal authorities refused to issue an NOC required by the Animal Husbandry Department for the appointment of veterinary doctors, which was necessary for restarting slaughterhouse operations and for inspection processes by APEDA.

Aggrieved by this refusal, the petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Court’s Observation

The High Court first addressed the question of the maintainability of the writ petition. It was observed that the dispute involved a refusal to perform a statutory administrative duty in disregard of a binding civil court decree. The Court noted that the rule of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and does not bar the exercise of writ jurisdiction where administrative action is arbitrary or contrary to binding judicial orders.

The Bench then examined the legal effect of a decree during the pendency of an appeal. Referring to Order XLI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court noted that the filing of an appeal does not automatically operate as a stay of the decree. Unless a stay is granted by the appellate court, the decree continues to remain operative and binding between the parties.

Applying this principle, the Court held that the municipal authorities could not treat the decree as non-existent merely because they had challenged it in appeal. Administrative decisions must proceed on the legal position that the decree continues to govern the rights and obligations of the parties until it is stayed or reversed.

The Court further observed that the municipal authorities attempted to rely on alleged infirmities in the agreement between the parties, including issues relating to registration and statutory limitations under the Maharashtra Municipal Councils Act. However, the Court held that such issues were matters for adjudication in the pending civil appeal and could not be used as a shortcut to defeat the operative decree through administrative refusal.

The Bench emphasised that until the decree is stayed or reversed, municipal authorities cannot nullify its effect through administrative action.

The Court also scrutinised the reasons cited for refusing the NOC. It noted that the refusal was primarily based on the pendency of litigation and alleged earlier cancellation of permissions. However, administrative orders must stand on their own reasons and cannot later be supplemented by new justifications.

The Court further observed that complaints, public opposition or political pressure cannot justify withholding administrative permissions unless supported by a legally sustainable determination of statutory violations after due process.

Examining the statutory framework governing municipal functions, the Bench observed that slaughterhouses fall within the obligatory duties of municipal administration relating to public health and regulated civic facilities. Where a municipal authority has established a slaughterhouse and chosen to manage it through a tender or lease arrangement, it must act consistently with the law and cannot arbitrarily obstruct regulatory compliance.

The Court also rejected the municipal council’s contention that the petitioner should have challenged the municipal resolution under the statutory supervisory provisions before approaching the High Court. The Court held that such provisions do not bar writ jurisdiction, particularly where administrative actions undermine binding judicial orders.

The Bench further noted that the petitioner was not seeking judicial permission to run the slaughterhouse but merely sought issuance of an NOC and renewal of permissions necessary for regulatory compliance, including appointment of veterinary doctors and fulfilment of statutory requirements.

In these circumstances, the Court concluded that the refusal of the NOC solely on the ground of pendency of the civil appeal was arbitrary and legally unsustainable

Conclusion

The Bombay High Court held that the municipal authorities’ refusal to issue the NOC, based solely on the pendency of a civil appeal against the decree and the alleged cancellation of earlier permissions, was illegal and unsustainable.

Accordingly, the Court quashed the impugned communication, refusing issuance of the NOC and directing the municipal authorities to issue the required NOC within two weeks to enable appointment of veterinary doctors and compliance with statutory veterinary procedures.

The Court further directed the municipal authorities to process and issue renewal or reinstatement of municipal permissions required for the regulated operation of the slaughterhouse, where the petitioner satisfies statutory requirements. The Court also directed the concerned authorities to process related regulatory approvals in accordance with the law.

However, the Court clarified that all questions relating to the legality of the agreement and other issues raised by the municipal authorities remain open for adjudication in the pending civil appeal and that the present judgment should not be treated as a final pronouncement on those issues.

Cause Title: Tapi Valley Agro Food Products Company v. Dondaicha Warwade Nagar Parishad & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AUG:9909-DB)

Appearances

Petitioner: Senior Advocates Nitin Pradhan, Shubhada Khot, Hemant Kumar F. Pawar.

Respondents Senior Advocates V.D. Hon, Manish V. Bhamre; Abhijeet M. Phule, AGP; Krushna Solanke, Central Government Counsel

Click here to read/download Judgment