BIND BASNI PRASAD, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution directed against (1) the Municipal board of Allahabad, (2) the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, and (3) the State of Uttar pradesh, in which the relief prayed is that a writ of Mandamus or directions be issued or such other suitable orders be passed as the Court may deem fit to restrain the Municipal Board of allahabad from enforcing its bye-laws published by Notification No. 4100/xxiii-82 (3)-49 in the u. P. Gazette, dated the 31st March, 1951. The facts are as follows:

( 2 ) THE applicant is a butcher and carries on the business of slaughtering cows, bulls and calves at allahabad. Bye-laws to regulate the slaughter of animals have been in existence in this municipality since 1916. On 31-3-1951, an amendment was made in these bye-laws according to which Clause (iii) of bye-law No. 1 was inserted to the following effect: "no bull, bullock, cow, calf (both male and female) shall be slaughtered in any slaughterhouse or in any other place. " the applicant contends that this new bye-law is an infringement of his fundamental right conferred by Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution, that it is repugnant to Article 14 as it makes a distinction between those who slaughter goats and sheep and those who slaughter bull, bullock, cow and calf and that the Municipal Board had no authority under the U. P. Municipalities Act to frame such a bye-law.

( 3 ) THE Commissioner of Allahabad has been impleaded because it was he who confirmed this bye-law and it was under his signature that it was published in the Gazette. The State of Uttar pradesh has been impleaded presumably because it required the Municipal Board, Allahabad, in terms of Sub-section (1) of Section 298 of the U. P. Municipalities Act to frame such a bye-law.

( 4 ) A preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of the opposite party to the maintainability of this application on the ground that the applicant could have brought a suit for an injunction and an alternative remedy is open to him. In this connection learned counsel points to the fact that a suit for a similar relief was instituted by Hafiz Ahmad Raza and two others against the municipal Board in the Court of the Civil Judge of Allahabad under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure representing the butchers and the hide merchants and praying for an injunction to restrain the defendant Board from enforcing the impugned bye-law. It is argued that as it is a representative suit the applicant is a party in that suit also. That suit was transferred to the extraordinary original side of this Court and it has been dismissed today on the preliminary ground of want of notice under Section 326 (1) of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916. Reliance is placed upon the Full Bench case of this Court the ASIATIC ENGINEERING CO. v. ACHHRU RAM, 1951 All L J 576 and another Full Bench case of this Court, moti LAL v. GOVERNMENT OF THE "state OF UTTAR PRADESH, AIR 1951 All 257 (FB ). Before referring to other cases cited on behalf of the opposite party, the principles laid down in these two Full Bench cases of our Court may be examined. In the asiatic ENGINEERING COs case, (1951 All L J 576 F B) these principles have been discussed at pages 595 to 597. Their lordships observed:

"the question whether any case has been made out for the grant of any of the writs, orders or directions claimed is, however, a different one and has to be considered with reference to the facts of this particular case. The terms of Article 226 of the Constitution are very wide. They enable this Court to issue, in suitable cases, writs, directions or orders including the writs of habeas corpus, certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and quo warranto for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution and for any other purpose. It strikes us that the fact that the Constituent Assembly has vested this Court with such vast powers imposes a heavy respo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document