Provisions governing vehicle seizure under the Chhattisgarh Agriculture Cattle Preservation Act do not infringe fundamental rights and are valid as reasonable regulations for public interest.

1. The only question involved in these writ petitions is, about validity of sub-sections (2) and (3) of S.6(6(2) and 6(3)) of the Chhattisgarh Agriculture Cattle Preservation Act, 2004 (the 2004 - Act).

2. THE FACTS
The Petitioners are carrying on business of transportation. Their vehicles have been seized under S.6(2) of the 2004 - Act and their applications for their release have been rejected by the Magistrate concerned under S.6(3) of the 2004 Act.
In Writ Petition (C) 912 of 2012, there are five Petitioners. The vehicle number CG - 07 - LJ - 3786 of Petitioner - 1 namely, CG - 07 - LJ - 3786 was transporting agriculture cattle on 14.04.2012. It was seized on the same day. Thereafter, his application to release the vehicle was rejected on 25.04.2012;
In Writ Petition (C) 947 of 2013, the Petitioner is the registered owner of vehicle - CG - 15 - AC - 0951. The vehicle was carrying agriculture cattle on 01.05.2013. It was seized on the same day. Thereafter, her application to release the vehicle was rejected on 06.05.2013.

3. The Petitioners have filed the present writ petitions challenging validity of S.6(2) and S.6(3) of the 2004 Act.

4. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
We have heard counsel for the parties. The following points arise for determination:
(i) Whether the impugned sub-sections are violative of Art.19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India ;
(ii) Whether the impugned sub-sections are hit by Art.254 of the Constitution being inconsistent with the provisions of The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (the 1960 Act) and S.451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC);
(iii) Whether the impugned sub-sections are violative of Art.301 of the Constitution.
1st POINT : NOT UNREASONABLE
Submissions of the parties

5. The counsel for the Petitioners placed reliance on Chintaman Rao and Another v. State of M.P. , AIR 1951 SC 118 (the Chintaman case), Municipal Corporation of City of Ahmedabad v. Jan Mohd. Usman Bhai , AIR 1986 SC 1205 (the Usmanbhai case) and NK Bajpai v. Union of India , AIR 2012 SC 1310 (the Bajpai case) and submit that:
The Petitioners are the owners of the vehicles and they are merely using them for transportation business;
The agriculture cattle were not being carried for slaughter or at least, the Petitioners had no knowledge that they were being transported in contravention of the 2004 Act;
By not releasing the vehicles of the Petitioners for six months, their entire business has come toa halt and it is an unreasonable restriction.

6. The Additional Advocate General for the State submits that:
Agriculture cattle are transported for sale or are returned after purchasing from a market, they are also transported for medical purposes or when they are shifted to another place for keeping -- otherwise, there is no justification to transport them from one place to other and in case they are otherwise transported, then, it is for slaughtering;
S.6(1) of the 2004 Act bars transportation for slaughtering only and not for any other purposes. S.6(2) and S.6(3) of the 2004 Act are only applicable if S.6(1) of the 2004 Act is applicable;
In case S.6(1) of the 2004 Act is not applicable, then, the vehicle can always be released at any time under S.451 of the CrPC;
It is for the Petitioners to satisfy that their vehicles are not being used for carrying agriculture cattle for slaughtering;
The restriction contained under S.6(2) and S.6(3) of the 2004 Act are not unreasonable.

7. Discussion
Art.19(1)(g) of the Constitution guarantees a fundamental right to all citizens to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business. However, Art.19(6) of the Constitution permits the State to enact a law imposing reasonable restriction in the interest o