( 1 ) FIVE petitioners, Darshan Kumar, Vijai Kumar, Om Prakash, Vijai Kumar son of Narain Das and Pradeep Kumar have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Gazette Notifications dated 25-1-86 and 23-8-86 (Annexures 1 and 2 respectively), prohibiting the sale of eggs within the municipal limit of Rishikesh.

( 2 ) WHEN the writ petition was admitted on 711-86, an interim order was also passed restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioners fight to do business of sale of eggs within the limits of Municipal Board, Rishikesh. A detailed counter affidavit along with an application to vacate the stay order was filed as early as on 13-2-87. But the case could not come up for one reason or the other and it has been listed for final hearing now. Rejoinder affidavit has also been filed.

( 3 ) SRI H. S. Nigam assisted by Sri S. S. Nigam has been heard at considerable length in support of this petition. Sri Bhartji Agarwal assisted by Sri Surendra Kumar Posti has also been heard at length in reply.

( 4 ) THE only question involved in this petition is as to whether the notification issued by the Municipal Board. Rishikesh is valid when it prohibits the sale of eggs within the municipal limit of Rishikesh?

( 5 ) BEFORE coming to the question of law, certain facts which are admitted to the parties, may be stated here. District Rishikesh is by and large a place where many temples exist. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that several citizens and societies, as well as organizations made representations to the Municipal Board calling upon it to impose restriction on the sale of eggs also on public places. Keeping in view the aforesaid demand of the citizens of the Municipality, the aforesaid notification was issued in accordance with law, i. e. after getting State Governments approval as envisaged under the provisions of the Municipalities Act. The other factor to be noted in this case is that it is nobodys case that the transportation of eggs through the district of Rishikesh is prohibited in any way. In other words, any business man who wants to take eggs through the district of Rishikesh is not prohibited and he may carry on his trade outside the municipal limit of Rishikesh.

( 6 ) SRI H. S. Nigam vehemently argued that the notification will not pass the test of reasonable restriction as may be imposable under Article 19 (g) of the Constitution. By the notifications referred to above existing bye law has been substituted by "amended bye laws". Therefore, for a ready reference, the entire notification is quoted hereunder :-"existing bye-laws1. In these bye-laws unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context "meat" means flesh of homed cattle, goats, swine, sheep or wild animals intended for human or animal consumption. 2. 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, thoroughfare, streets, lodging houses, hotels, Dhabas, Restaurants, Dharamshalas, Kshetras and shops situated within the limits of the Municipal Board. Amended Bye-Laws1. In these bye-laws unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context "meat" and "eggs" means flesh of horned cattle, goats, swine, sheep, wild animals and any kind of eggs intended for human consumption. 1 2. 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, thoroughfare, streets, lodging houses, hotels, Dhabas, Restaurants, Dharamshalas, Kshetras and shops situated within the limits of Municipal Board.

( 7 ) IT may be mentioned here that the prohibition to sell meat and fish have been described in the existing bye-laws were not challenged to the knowledge of this Court, but it is addition of the word "eggs" by the amended bye-laws, which is the subject matter of challenge. Let it be emphasised here that a look of para 2 of the amen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document