J.B. PARDIWALA, J.

1. BY way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners who are traders engaged in the trade of buying and selling of sheep and goat, seek to challenge the constitutional validity of Section 35(1) and Section 35(2) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, on the ground that Section 35(1) and Section 35(2) of the Act are ultra-vires to the provisions of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Though the petitioners have challenged constitutional validity of Section 35(1) and Section 35(2) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, they have confined their challenge only to a part of Section 35(2) of the said Act, which empowers the learned Magistrate concerned to send the entire livestock to a Pinjarapole.

2. THE facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition can be summarised as under:-

2.1 Petitioners are traders engaged in the trading of buying and selling of sheep and goats. All the three petitioners reside in the State of Rajasthan. As a part of their business, they buy sheep and goats from the nearby areas in Rajasthan and sell them to the respective customers in the State of Gujarat and Maharashtra. In order to transport the animals from Rajasthan to the places of delivery, the consignment (livestock) is entrusted to the transporters with licence to carry sheep and goats.

2.2 It appears that on 15.11.2010, the petitioners transported 393, 232 and 299 sheep and goats in three trucks bearing Nos. GJ24 7101, RJ04 A0357 and RJ19GB 225 respectively. THE delivery point for the livestock was Bombay and the trucks were to pass National Highway No.8 in Gujarat.

2.3 It further appears that when the trucks were crossing the town of Vapi, some unknown persons with few Policemen intercepted the three trucks. THE drivers of the respective trucks were taken by the Policemen to Vapi Police Station. It appears that the entire livestock was straight-away handed over to Pinjarapole in Vapi, managed by respondent No.3 herein.

2.4 It also appears that an FIR came to be registered by Vapi Town Police Station, being FIR No.II-540 of 2010 for offences punishable under Section 11(1)(d) of the Act. It also appears that the petitioners preferred application before the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Vapi under the provision of Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code for obtaining the custody of their respective sheep and goats.

2.5 Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vapi, thought fit to pass an order granting interim custody of the livestock to the petitioners subject to certain terms and conditions. It appears that respondent No.3, who is managing the Pinjarapole at Vapi, immediately preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 77 of 2010 in the Court of Sessions Judge at Valsad and challenged the order of learned JMFC, Vapi, granting interim custody of the livestock to the petitioners. Sessions Court at Valsad, stayed the operation, implementation and execution of the order passed by the learned JMFC, Vapi. As a result of the stay granted by the Sessions Court, petitioners were not able to take custody and possession of the livestock and the entire livestock of sheep and goats remained in the care of Pinjarapole at Vapi.

2.6 It appears that the entire livestock of sheep and goats around 1,000 in numbers, died at Pinjarapole of Vapi.

It is at this stage that the petitioners, feeling aggrieved, thought fit to prefer this petition in the above referred factual background, challenging the constitutional validity of Section 35(1) and Section 35(2) of the Act, on the ground that the same is ultra-vires Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

3. WE have heard learned Advocate Mr. Mukul Sinha, appearing for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader Mr. P.K. Jani for respondent No.1 and learned Advocate Mr. Virat Popat for respondent No.3.

4. LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners submitted that though the challenge as regards constitutional