MUMBAI, Aug. 21 -- The Bombay High Court on Wednesday refused to order closure of slaughter houses for nine days coinciding with the Jain religious festival of Paryushan Parv, saying there was no such legal mandate. "You are seeking Mandamus. For that, there has to be a mandate in law. Where is the law? Where does it say that slaughter houses must be closed for 10 days," the division bench of chief justice Alok Aradhe and justice Sandeep Marne told the Jain petitioners who sought a nine-day closure of slaughterhouses during the festival. A mandamus is a court order compelling a government official or body to perform a specific legal duty. The Paryushan Parv commenced on Wednesday. The court had earlier directed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to reconsider the Jain community's representation after it permitted only a one-day closure of slaughter houses during the festival. Pursuant to the court's directions, the BMC issued an order on August 14 extending the closure to two days-August 24 and August 27, the latter coinciding with Ganesh Chaturthi. Dissatisfied, the petitioners returned to court insisting on a full nine-day ban coinciding with the festival. Appearing for the petitioners, advocate Abhinav Chandrachud cited the Hinsa Virodhak Sangh ruling, in which the Supreme Court upheld a decision of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation to close slaughter houses during the festival. Mumbai has a larger Jain population than Ahmedabad, which the BMC had failed to account for, Chandrachud argued. The plea did not cover fish or seafood and a restriction on slaughter houses would not violate fundamental rights, he said. Senior advocate Prasad Dhakephalkar, also for the petitioners, maintained that the BMC had disproportionately factored in the interests of the non-vegetarian population, despite a vegetarian majority in Mumbai. He even referred to Emperor Akbar's decree prohibiting slaughter during Paryushan, remarking that it was harder to secure a similar order from the civic body. The court, however, said that unlike in Ahmedabad, no municipal decision had been made here warranting judicial support. "You will appreciate the difficulty. In Ahmedabad the corporation had taken a decision. But (in this case), there is no legislative mandate, no rule, no law, policy, no legally enforceable right that they must close. Where is that obligation? You understand the distinction," the court said. The judges advised the petitioners to amend their plea if they wished to challenge the BMC's decision for being arbitrary or inadequately reasoned. The matter was adjourned for two weeks, with notice issued to the BMC....