IMPORTANT POINT
Gazette Notifications prohibiting the sale of eggs within the municipal limits of Rishikesh cannot be held to be violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

Headnote:Constitution of India-Article 19(1)(g)-U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 -Section 298(2) List I heading F-Total prohibition on sale of eggs in municipal limits of Rishikesh-Writ petition challenging Gazette Notifications as violative of rights under Article 19(1)(g)-Whether Municipal Board could frame bye-laws prohibiting sale of eggs within its municipal limits, when the word eggs is not covered by Section 298(2) List I heading F of the Act-(Yes)-High Court rightly held that impugned notification does not violate any right of appellants as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution-Several organizations, societies and residents of Rishikesh had approached the Municipal Board for such a ban-Such a ban was already imposed concerning sale of meat and fish-By the amended law word eggs was added in existing bye-laws.
       Per Shivaraj V. Patil, J.
       Held : Assuming eggs is not one of the specified items under Section 298(2) list I heading F of the Act, the respondent Board has power under Section 298(1) of the Act to make a bye-law unless such a bye-law framed by the Board is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act or the rules. No provision was pointed out to contend that the amended bye-law in question is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act or rules. Though under the heading F of List I aforementioned eggs is not an item which is totally a stranger with reference to sale of such item in the market for human consumption. (Para 12)
       Mere omission to mention eggs either in Section 241 or Section 298 (2) List I Heading F does not make the amended bye-law invalid. In my view, the High Court was right in holding that prohibition of sale of eggs within the municipal limits of Rishikesh was not an unreasonable restriction, the bye-law was in the larger interest of welfare of the people consistent with the provision of the Act and that the amended bye-law was not invalid having due regard to Sections 241 and 298 of the Act. (Para 14)
       Per Dharmadhikari, J. (Concurring Judgment)
       In municipal limits of Haridwar public dealing in meat, fish and eggs was banned by the Notification issued as far back as on 23rd July, 1956 and in Muni Ki Reti by Notification dated 18.12.1976. These restrictions imposed in Haridwar and Muni Ki Reti have not been challenged by any section of people in the Court and have continued as fully acceptable to all. The towns of Haridwar and Rishikesh have acquired religious importance as they are located on banks of river Ganges in the foot hills of Himalayas and are two main entry points for pilgrimage to Badrinath and Kedarnath located on the heights of Himalayas. (Para 28)
       The resolution by Municipal Board Rishikesh to amend its bye-laws for banning public dealing and trade of non-vegetarian food items in municipal town of Rishikesh along with adjoining towns of Haridwar and Muni Ki Reti has been taken in deference to the religious and cultural demands of large number of residents and pilgrims who visit regularly and periodically on auspicious and festive days to the three towns. It is stated on behalf of the Municipal Board that major source of revenue and employment in the three towns is from the continuous inflow of tourists and floating population of pilgrims. Maintenance of clean and congenial atmosphere in all religious places which are spread over all the three towns is in common interest of the residents, pilgrims and visitors. Continuous floating population of pilgrims benefit the inhabitants of the towns by providing them various sources of earning livelihood and employment. Tourists and pilgrims are the major sources of revenue for the Local Municipal Bodies and the inhabitants of the three towns. Geographical situation and peculiar culture of the three towns justify complete restriction on trade and public dealing in non-vegetarian food items including eggs within the municipal limits of the towns. The High Court rightly upheld it to be a reasonable restriction. Trade in all kinds of food items vegetarian or non-vegetarian in adjoining towns and villages outside the municipal limits of three towns remains unrestricted and there is no substantial harm caused to those engaged in such trade. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned bye-law notified by Municipal Board Rishikesh cannot be held to be violative of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. (Paras 39 and 40)

JUDGMENT

Shivaraj V. Patil, J.-The appellants and two other persons filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the Gazette Notifications prohibiting the sale of eggs within the municipal limits of Rishikesh on the ground that notifications issued imposed unreasonable restrictions affecting their rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, as they prohibited the sale of eggs within the municipal limits; the amended bye-laws including the eggs prohibiting their sales within the municipal limits was not valid as eggs is not covered by Section 298(2) List I heading F of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (for short the Act ).

2. Admitted facts, as noticed by the High Court, are that District Rishikesh is by and large a place where many temples exist. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents before the High Court it is stated that several citizens, societies and organizations made representations to the Municipal Board, Rishikesh requesting it to impose restrictions on the sale of eggs also in public places. Having regard to the said demand of citizens the municipality issued notification in question after getting the approval of the Government as per the provisions of the Act. It is also pointed out that the transportation of eggs through municipal limits of Rishikesh is not prohibited in any way. A businessman, who wants to take eggs through Rishikesh, is not prohibited and he may carry on his trade outside the municipal limits of Rishikesh. The relevant bye-laws prior to amendment was:-

"No person shall sell or expose for sale or cook or carry in a manner exposed to public gaze any kind of meat or fish in any public place, thorough fare, streets, lodging houses, hotels, dhabas, restaurants, dharamshalas, kshetras and shops situated within the limits of the Municipal Board."

The amended bye-law reads :-

"No person shall sell or expose for sale or cook or carry in a manner exposed to public gaze any kind of meat, fish or eggs in any public place, thorough fare, streets, lodging houses, hotels, dhabas, restaurants, dharamshalas, kshetras and shops situated within the limits of Municipal Board."

3. As is evident, in amended bye-law only eggs is added. There was already prohibition in regard to any kind of meat or fish. The High Court has noticed that under bye-laws before amendment prohibition of sale of meat and fish, which was existing for long time, was not challenged.

4. In the light of the rival contentions urged on behalf of the parties the question that arises for consideration is whether the Municipal Board could frame bye-laws prohibiting the sale of eggs within its municipal limits, when the word eggs is not covered by Section 298(2) list I heading F of the Act.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants urged that total prohibition on sale of eggs in the municipal limits of Rishikesh is unreasonable and seriously affects rights of the appellants to carry on trade under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution; under Section 298 of the Act the respondent Board could not frame bye-law in relation to eggs looking to Section 298(2) list I heading F and Section 241 of the Act; eggs cannot be read as included in meat or fish since the eggs, which are being sold by the appellants, do not hatch and give birth to chicks and even otherwise if the respondent Board in the interest of promoting or maintaining the health, safety of the public can make bye-law, then the total prohibition would be unreasonable and arbitrary although the board can take steps as it may deem necessary to regulate the sale of eggs.

6. Challenge made on behalf of the appellants was met by learned counsel on behalf of the respondents by contending that Section 241 of the Act deals with the requirement of obtaining a licence to use any place as market or shop for sale of animals, meat or fish intended for human food, or as a market for the sale of fruits or vegetables and such right shall be subject to the bye-laws made under Secti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 286

IMPORTANT POINTGazette Notifications prohibiting the sale of eggs within the municipal limits of Rishikesh cannot be held to be violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

Cases Referred (8)

IMPORTANT POINT
Gazette Notifications prohibiting the sale of eggs within the municipal limits of Rishikesh cannot be held to be violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.