Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Yatindra Singh & Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, JJ.
Md. Aslam Chouhan and Others – Appellants
Vs.
State of Chhattisgarh and Another – Respondent
Writ Petition (C) No. 947 of 2013 & Writ Petition (C) No. 912 of 2012
Decided On : 21.11.2013
Criminal Procedure Code - section 451 - Chhattisgarh Agriculture Cattle Preservation Act, 2004 - Section 6 – Constitution of India - Article 254 - Challenging the validity - Preventing public injury - Challenged in appropriate proceeding - Petitioners are carrying on business of transportation - Question is whether sections 6(2) and 6(3) of the 2004 Act impose unreasonable restrictions to carry on business of transportation or not Constitution is titled as Directive Principles of State Policy. Article 48 of this part is titled as Organisation of agriculture and animal husbandry - It provides that the State shall attempt to agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving breeds and prohibiting slaughter of cows and calves and other mulch and draught cattle – Held, Sections 6(2) and 6(3) of Chhattisgarh Agriculture Cattle Preservation Act, are applicable only if sub-section 6 is applicable. The limitation for not releasing a vehicle within a period of six months or till the conclusion of trial is attracted only if section 6 is applicable. In case, the Magistrate is prima facie of the view that agriculture cattle were not being transported for slaughtering, then the embargo contained in sections 6(2) and 6(3) are not applicable - In any case limitation for not releasing the vehicle case is not applicable after expiry of six months or conclusion of the trial in that event, release of the vehicle has to be considered under the provisions of the Cr. P.C Sections 6(2) and 6(3) of Chhattisgarh Agriculture Cattle Preservation Act, 2004 are valid - In view of our conclusions, the writ petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid observations and the clarification mentioned under the heading some clarifications - Section 6 as amended is as follows - Prohibition on transport of agriculture cattle for slaughter - No person shall sell, or transport or offer to transport or cause to be transported any agriculture cattle from any place within the state to any place within the State or outside the State, for the purpose of its slaughter in contravention of provisions of this Act or with the knowledge that it will be or is likely to be, so slaughtered - Whenever any person transports or causes to be transported in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) any agriculture cattle as specified in the Schedule, such vehicle or any conveyance used in transporting such animal along with such agriculture cattle shall be liable to be seized by such authority or officer as State Government may appoint in this behalf - On the other hand, a Rule which permits such transport, subject to certain specified conditions for preventing public injury or to serve the public good, e.g. in pursuance of the Directive under Article 51A(g) would be a reasonable restriction whether under Art. 19(1)(g) or Article 304. Thus illicit felling of trees may be regulated by requiring that no forest produce should be transported from one place to another without obtaining a permit from a specified officer – Petition Disposed off
1. The only question involved in these writ petitions is, about validity of sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section {6(6)(2) and 6(3)} of the Chhattisgarh Agriculture Cattle Preservation Act, 2004.
THE FACTS
The Petitioners are carrying on business of transportation. Their vehicles have been seized under Section 6(2) of the 2004 Act and their applications for their release have been rejected by the magistrate concerned under Section 6(3) of the 2004 Act.
In Writ Petition (C) 912 of 2012, there are five Petitioners. The vehicle number CG-07-LJ-3786 of Petitioner-1 namely, CG-07-LJ-3786 was transporting agriculture cattle on 14.04.2012. It was seized on the same day. Thereafter, his application to release the vehicle was rejected on 25.04.2012.
In Writ Petition (C) 947 of 2013, the Petitioner is the registered owner of vehicle-CG-15-AC-0951. The vehicle was carrying agriculture cattle on 01.05.2013. It was seized on the same day. Thereafter, her application to release the vehicle was rejected on 06.05.2013.
2. The Petitioners have filed the present writ petitions challenging validity of sections 6(2) and 6(3) of the 2004 Act.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
3. We have heard counsel for the parties. The following points arise for determination:
(i) Whether the impugned sub-sections are violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
(ii) Whether the impugned sub-sections are hit by Article 254 of the Constitution being inconsistent with the provisions of The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (the 1960 Act) and Sections 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. P.C.).
(iii) Whether the impugned sub-sections are violative of article 301 of the Constitution.
FIRST POINT – NOT UNREASONABLE
Submissions of the parties
4. The counsel for the Petitioners placed reliance on Chintaman Rao & Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1951 SC 118, Municipal Corporation of City of Ahmedabad vs. Jan Mohd. Usman Bhai, AIR 1986 SC 1205 and N.K. Bajpai vs. Union of India, AIR 2012 SC 1310 and submit that:
The Petitioners are the owners of the vehicles and they are merely using them for transportation business:
The agriculture cattle were not being carried for slaughter or at least, the Petitioners had no knowledge that they were being transported in contravention of the 2004 Act.
By not releasing the vehicles of the Petitioners for six months, their entire business has come to a halt and it is an unreasonable restriction.
5. The Additional Advocate General for the State submits that:
Agriculture cattle are transported for sale or are returned after purchasing from a market, they are also transported for medical purposes or when they are shifted to another place for keeping otherwise, there is no justification to transport them from one place to other and in case they are otherwise transported, then, it is for slaughtering.
Section 6(1) of the 2004 Act bars transportation for slaughtering only and not for any other purposes. Sections 6(2) and 6(3) of the 2004 Act are only applicable if section 6(1) of the 2004 Act is applicable.
In case section 6(1) of the 2004 Act is not applicable, then, the vehicle can always be released at any time under section 451 of the Cr. P.C.
It is for the Petitioners to satisfy that their vehicles are not being used for carrying agriculture cattle for slaughtering;
The restriction contained under Sections 6(2) and 6(3) of the 2004 Act are not unreasonable.
Discussion
6. Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution guarantees a fundamental right to all citizens to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business. However, Article 19 of the Constitution permits the State to enact a law imposing reasonable restriction in the interest of general public (public interest).
7. The Petitioners are carrying on the business of transportation. The question is whether sections 6(2) and 6(3) of the 2004 Act impose unreasonable restrictions to carry on the business of transportation or not.
8. Part-IV of the Constitution is tit
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
