The main legal point established in the judgment is that while the Act did not suffer from excessive delegation of legislative functions, Section 8 of the Act conferred unbridled power on the government, requiring judicial intervention to set the provision at naught.

(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Declaration for the reasons stated therein.)

B. Subhashan Reddy, CJ.

1. The constitutionality of Tamil Nadu Animals & Birds in Urban Areas (Control & Regulation) Act, 1997 (Act 46 of 1997), hereinafter referred to as the Act, and the consequential notifications issued thereunder are in challenge in this batch of writ petitions.

2. Before coming into force of the Act, the keeping of animals and birds was being regulated by issuance of licences under Sections 282 and 283 of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, hereinafter referred to as the CCMC Act. In fact, no such strict regulation was being enforced and it can be taken that the Chennai Corporation has never bestowed any attention or deemed it serious about the requirement of licences for keeping the animals or birds, as the case may be. While the Municipal Corporations Act is a general enactment, the Act in question is a special one relating to animals and birds in urban areas and it prevails over the Acts under which the local authorities function.

3. Even though arguments have been advanced that the licences have to be issued only under the CCMC Act, there is no force in this contention, as, so long as the provisions of the Act operate, no conflicting provisions in the CCMC Act can prevail.

4. We shall now proceed to consider the contentions touching upon the constitutionality of the Act and the notifications issued thereunder.

5. So far as the legislative competence is concerned, no argument has been raised and there is no scope for raising the arguments. Arguments have been advanced touching upon the abdication of essential legislative functions and fundamental rights of equality and arbitrariness (Art.14), right to carry on trade or profession (Art.19 (1) (g) and right to life (Art.21).

6. Mr. K.M.Vijayan, learned Senior Counsel, led the arguments for the petitioners followed by Mr. S. Sampath Kumar, the learned senior counsel and Mr.Ayyathurai and Prof.S.Krishnaswamy, learned counsel and other learned counsel. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Act is hit by excessive delegation of legislative functions and violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 , 19(1)(g) and 21 as also of Article 48 of Indian Constitution. They also raised an argument that Section 8 of the Act is inconsistent with Section 4 of the Act and on that count, Section 8 of the Act is liable to be struck down. Alternative argument is that in the face of Section 4 of the Act, Section 8 is not necessary and in fact, it is superfluous.

7. The contentions raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners have been countered by Mr.R.Muthukumaraswamy, Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State. He submitted that the prohibition is imposed by issuance of notifications in the larger public interest, that there is nexus for the object to be achieved, that as the prohibited animals were the cause for the environmental degradation, the notification was issued prohibiting the keeping of the animals in specified Divisions of the Chennai Corporation, that even if a small section of owners of animals and birds are affected, as there is a larger public interest to keep the places covered by the Divisions in which prohibition has been imposed, pollution-free, the notification is valid, that fundamental rights of the petitioners to carry on their profession or trade, cannot outweigh the greater fundamental right of the citizens, who need pollution-free environment, which is also a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

8. Either side have relied upon some judicial precedents in support of their respective contentions.

9. The contentions and rival contentions raised by either parties give rise to the following contentious issues:

(i) Whether the impugned Act suffers from delegation of essential legislative functions?

(ii) whethe