CAN A municipality demand details about meat procurement, storage and transportation before issuing No Objection Certificates (NOCs) to a meat seller? The Gujarat High Court (HC) has asked the Patan municipality to reconsider the question while deciding fresh applications from vendors challenging the civic body’s refusal to issue the certificates.The court, while hearing a batch of 10 petitions concerning the non-grant of NOCs required for registration under the Food Safety and Standards Act (FSS Act), recorded the petitioners’ contention that the municipality had “exercised jurisdiction not available to it by seeking documents and clarifications, which, prima facie, would be within the purview of the authorities under the Food Safety and Standards Act”.The petitioners argued that the Municipality’s role in issuing an NOC was limited and that it could not seek information or impose conditions relating to matters falling within the jurisdiction of the food safety authorities.The dispute concerns the refusal by Patan Municipality to issue NOCs to meat vendors, who say the absence of these certificates has prevented them from obtaining or renewing the registrations required to operate their businesses.On the scope of the NOC, the order records the petitioners’ submission that “the local authority has to grant N.O.C. as per Regulation 10.03 of the Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Businesses) Regulations, 2011, more particularly, no objection in the perspective of law and order, which is required only for sale of buffalo meat and pork”.The petitioners’ counsel further submitted that “the petitioners are ‘petty food manufacturers’, as defined under the Regulations of 2011”. Referring to Section 31 of the FSS Act, the order records their argument that “the ‘petty food manufacturers’ only require a registration and not a license”. They also contended that “the rigors of the Act and the Regulations of 2011 would apply to slaughter houses and not to ‘petty food manufacturers’ like the petitioners”.The municipality , on the other hand, contended that “in addition to the N.O.C. to be obtained under Regulation 10.03 of the Regulations of 2011, the petitioners are also required to fulfill the conditions as found in Regulation 10.05 of the Regulations of 2011”.Story continues below this adThe court noted that “the issue has neither been examined by the respondents nor has it been pleaded in the petition”, and observed that “an opportunity is required to be granted to the respondents to consider the application of the petitioners from the perspective of jurisdiction which could be exercised by the local authority”.Accordingly, the court directed the petitioners in the batch of 10 cases to submit fresh applications for NOCs by November 13, setting out their contentions regarding the scope of the NOC requirement and the authority competent to examine them.The municipality, the District Level Committee or the appropriate authority has been directed to decide the applications by December 4. In the event of rejection, the authority must “deal with each of the contentions raised by the petitioners”.The court further directed that if the municipality considers the District Level Committee to be the competent authority, it should forward the applications to the committee. The decisions are to be placed before the court after copies are supplied to the petitioners, who would be at liberty to amend their petitions to challenge any adverse decisions.The matter will be heard next on November 27.Story continues below this adThe dispute has its background in action initiated by the Patan civic body earlier this year against meat vendors operating in the town. The petitioners have maintained that they have traditionally been engaged in the slaughter and sale of non-vegetarian meat from their shops for several decades. They contend that their businesses were being carried on lawfully and that they had obtained registrations from the Food and Drugs Control Administration, which were periodically renewed. However, they allege that subsequent renewals could not be secured because the Municipality refused to issue the required NOCs.According to the petitioners, the municipality subsequently issued notices asking them to obtain licences and threatened action against their businesses. They alleged that on January 5, 2026, officials, accompanied by police personnel, sealed shops and business premises and disconnected electricity, water and drainage connections.They further challenged a questionnaire issued by the Municipality on February 18, 2026, which sought details relating to the nature of the businesses, procurement of meat, GST, transportation, storage and other aspects of their operations. The petitioners contended that such matters fell within the domain of the authorities administering the FSS Act and could not be made conditions for the grant of a municipal NOC.The HC has not, at this stage, ruled on the legality of the Municipality action or directed the issuance of NOCs. Instead, it has required the authorities to reconsider the applications and address the petitioners’ objections while deciding them.