Back
2001 Supreme(Guj) 30
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :D.M.Dharmadhikari, M.S.Shah
ABDULSATTAR YUSUFBHAI QURESHI - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
S.C.A. 4343 of 1996
Decided On : 01/16/2001
Headnote:(a) Gujarat Essential Commodities & Cattle (Control) Act, 1958 (Bom. 62 of 1958) - Secs. 4 and 5 - Government notification 1.12.1989 ceiling put on bull, bullock slaughtered in city of Ahmedabad - Notification challenged - Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts. 19(1), (g) and 21 - The reduction of quota is interference in fundamental right of business of free trade - Held, reduction of quota is not unreasonable restriction on fundamental right.
Considering the question of reasonable restriction, therefore, this Court cannot merely look at the quota initially fixed in the Notification of 1976 of 363 per week and comparing the same with the present quota fixed under the impugned Notification of 1989 hold that the reduction of quota to such a low level is an indirect attempt to impose ban on slaughter of bulls and bullocks. The fundamental right of trade in meat of animals is carried on living creatures. It is the duty of the State to see that exercise of such right does not completely extinguish the specie of creatures which is useful to society. That is the Directive Principle under Art. 48 and the constitutional Duty under Art. 15(1A)(g) and (i). On the basis of justification shown by the State, it is not possible for us to hold that the reduction of quota of slaughter for Ahmedabad City in comparison with the earlier quota, is an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right of the petitioners and it is an indirect attempt to put complete ban on slaughter of bulls and bullocks.
[Para 26]
So far as the power of the State Government to restrict the slaughter of bulls and bullocks under the provisions of the Act is concerned, Court has held above, that such power to regulate and prohibit trade in cattle flows from the provisions of Sec. 4. Issuance of an order or notification in exercise of powers under Sec. 4 and 5 is not a one time exercise of power. It has to be exercised from time to time depending upon the existing situations and the demands of the time. The quota fixed by the impugned Notification is not static and it is open to the State Government, depending upon its study based on periodic survey to increase or decrease the quota for City of Ahmedabad and other cities.
[Para 28]
With the above clarification, Court does not find any constitutional infirmity in the impugned Notification or order issued under the Act.
[Para 29]
(b) Gujarat Essential Commodities Cattle (Control) Act, 1958 (Bom. 62 of 1958) - Secs. 4 and 5 - Government notification dated 11.12.1989 - Notification reduced quantity of bull and bullock - Notification does not contravene Art. 21 of Constitution of India.
It is not the case of the petitioners that they are dealing in meat of bulls and bullocks only. The fundamental right of the pertitioners to carry on their trade in meat and flesh of other animals and even of bulls and bullocks to some extent is not taken away. So also the petitioners on behalf of beef eaters cannot be allowed to urge that they are unable to obtain a high protein cheap diet. No such complaint on behalf of beef eaters has been made. The petitioners as dealers in meat cannot be heard to say that they must be allowed to slaughter bulls and bullocks in same number as they were doing in the past and to sell beef in same quantities. Court does not find that there has been any serious deprivation of fundamental right of the petitioners to carry on their trade of running slaughter houses and selling of meat/beef.
[Para 27]
( 1 ) THE petitioners are engaged in the business of slaughter and selling of meat of bulls, bullocks and other animals. By this petition, they question the constitutional validity of the Notification dated 11-12-1989 published in Government Gazette dated 13-12-1989 by the State of Gujarat, which is purported to have been issued by it in exercise of its powers conferred under clause (b) of subsection (1) and clause (g) of subsection (2) of Section 4 and clause (a) of subsection (1) of Section 5 of the Gujarat Essential Commodities and Cattle (Control) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act of 1958) as applicable to the State of Gujarat. By the impugned Notification, the earlier Notification issued on the same subject and under the same provisions of law dated 15-10-1976 has been modified, in so far as the imposition of ceiling of maximum number of bulls and bullocks that may be slaughtered in the City of Ahmedabad. Prior to the impugned Notification, the existing Notification dated 15-10-1976 published in Government Gazette dated 15-11-1976 issued under the provisions of Section 4 and 5 of the Act prescribed maximum limits for slaughter of bulls and bullocks in different States. For Ahmedabad City, the permissible maximum number of bulls and bullocks that may be slaughtered in a week was 363. By the impugned Notification issued on 11-12-1989 and published on 13-12-1989, only for Ahmedabad City the permissible maximum limit of number of bulls and bullocks that may be slaughtered is stated to have been ludicrously reduced from 363 per week to 60 per year.
( 2 ) THE petitioners challenge the validity of the impugned Notification on several grounds. Firstly, it is submitted that repeated attempts made by State of Gujarat and other States like Madhya Pradesh to impose complete ban on slaughter of bulls and bullocks did not succeed. The Supreme Court struck down such complete ban on slaughter of such bulls and bullocks which have outlived their utility on the ground that it is unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right of the dealers in meat and those engaged in the business of slaughter houses under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hasmattullah v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1996 SC 2076 in which all earlier decisions of the Supreme Court earliest from the case of Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar AIR 1958 SC 731, Abdul Hakim Quraishi v. State of Bihar AIR 1961 SC 448 and lastly Mohd. Faruk v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1970 SC 93 have been considered to hold that total ban of slaughter of bulls and bullocks is ultravires the Constitution.
( 3 ) ON behalf of the petitioner, learned Sr. Counsel Shri Arun Mehta contends that the impugned Notification putting such ludicrously low ceiling on slaughter of bulls and bullocks in Ahmedabad City is nothing but an indirect attempt to impose complete ban on slaughter of bulls and bullocks. Reducing the maximum permissible number of slaughter to 60 bulls and bullocks per year virtually amounts to one bullock per week, and it is so ludicrously low that it virtually deprives the petitioners of their right to trade in slaughter of bulls and bullocks and in dealing in business of selling beef. In this respect, it is submitted that meat of bulls and bullocks is a non-vegetarian diet of poorer sections of the society belonging to Muslims, Christians and even modern Hindu community. The impugned Notification is nothing but an attempt to appease the religious sentiments of a section of citizens who believe in vegetarianism and are against killing of cow and its progeny. The contention, thus, is that issuance of the impugned Notification, in effect, is an exercise of fraud upon the powers of the State Government.
( 4 ) THE next ground urged is that as the Preamble and the provisions of Section 4 and 5 of the Act show the enactment was not brought into force for the purpose
