Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 81654
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-12533-2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 24.04.2026
Rajinder Kumar and others Versus State of Punjab and others
Present: Mr. J.S. Thind, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Ishan Kaushik, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Arjun Kapur, Advocate for respondents No.3 to 5.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER
For the Appellants/Petitioners: J.S. Thind
For the Respondents: Ishan Kaushik, Arjun Kapur
A state-imposed, area-specific restriction on the sale of non-vegetarian items within demarcated 'Holy Cities' constitutes a 'reasonable restriction' under Article 19(6) of the Constitution, as it balances the promotion of religious harmony, public sentiment, and the preservation of composite culture against the individual right to trade.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 19(1)(g) and Article 19(6) - Fundamental Right to trade - Reasonable restrictions - Prohibition of sale of meat and related products within defined 'Holy Cities' - Whether such a ban constitutes a reasonable restriction in public interest. (Paras 3, 6, 17)
(B) Fundamental Duties - Article 51-A(e) and (f) - Pluralistic society - Promotion of harmony and respect for religious sentiments - Judicial notice of cultural and religious significance of cities like Amritsar, Sri Anandpur Sahib, and Talwandi Sabo. (Paras 12, 13)
(C) Administrative Law - Writ of Mandamus - Sealing of business premises pursuant to government notification - Removal of perishable goods - Provision for de-sealing to clear stock and consideration of representations for alternate business. (Paras 20, 21)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, wholesale fish merchants in the walled City of Amritsar, challenged the sealing of their business premises. The state issued a notification declaring specific cities as 'Holy Cities', leading to a prohibition on the sale of meat, liquor, and tobacco within those limits. Petitioners argued this infringed their fundamental right to practice a trade under Article 19(1)(g).
Findings of Court:
The court held that the restriction is limited to the defined 'walled city' area and not a blanket ban, making it consistent with the test of reasonableness under Article 19(6). Drawing from precedent, the court emphasized the promotion of harmony in a multi-cultural society under Article 51-A.
Issues: Whether the restriction on the sale of non-vegetarian food in specified holy cities constitutes an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right to trade/business.
Ratio Decidendi: A government-imposed restriction prohibiting the sale of non-vegetarian food in designated heritage or holy sites is a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6), provided it is not absolute and balances public interest, religious sentiment, and cultural heritage, while ensuring minimal intrusion into broader economic activities.
Result: Writ petition dismissed; liberty to remove perishable items and apply for change of business trade granted.
HARSH BUNGER J. (ORAL)
1. Petition herein is, inter alia, seeking a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing respondent No.3 (Estate Officer, Municipal Corporation, Amritsar) to de-seal the business premises of the petitioners, which have been sealed on 20.04.2026 in pursuance of the notification dated 15.12.2025 (Annexure P-2) issued by the Punjab Government.
2. Briefly, petitioners are stated to be the licensees and registered shop owners carrying on the business of wholesale supply of fish. They are stated to be engaged in the said business for the past many decades and the main business premises are stated to be situated in the fish market, Hall Gate, Amritsar.
2.1 It appears that the Punjab Government issued a notification dated 15.12.2025 (Annexure P-2), whereby the walled City of Amritsar in District Amritsar; the City of Sri Anandpur Sahib in District Rupnagar; and the City of Talwandi Sabo (Sri Damdama Sahib) in District Bathinda, are declared as the ‘Holy Cities of the State of Punjab’. It appears that following the declaration, further direction has been issued to the Administrative Secretaries of various departments to impose restrictions on the sale and use of liquor and other related products; cigarettes and tobacco and other intoxicants; and meat etc. within these cities.
2.2 It is the case of petitioners that after issuance of the notification (Annexure P-2), no prohibitory orders have been issued by the Administrative Secretaries of the concerned departments, however, the officials of the Municipal Corporation and local police have started compelling the petitioners to shut down their business premises and shops.
2.3 The petitioners claim that since they are the members of the Amritsar Wholesale and Retail Fish Association, they approached the official respondents stating that no coercive action be taken against the shop owners/businesses till the alternative shops or sites are not provided to them, and that they should be permitted to continue to work at the present premises, i.e. the Hall Gate, Amritsar.
2.4 The petitioners further allege that the officials of the Municipal Corporation accompanied by the local police arrived at the Hall Gate, Amritsar, on 20.4.2026, in the afternoon, and forcibly closed all the shops in the area and sealed them. It is stated that when the petitioners asked for any order passed by the relevant department for shutting down the premises and sealing them, it was stated that the notification dated 15.12.2025 (Annexure P-2) and the notice themselves amount to an order.
2.5 The petitioners contend that the notification dated 15.12.2025 (Annexure P-2) itself specifies that the Administrative Secretary of the Department of Animal Husbandry would issue prohibitory orders within the specified cities, however, no such order has been passed nor it has been received by the petitioners.
2.6 It is stated the notification dated 15.12.2025 (Annexure P-2) was earlier challenged by some of the shop keepers of Sri Anandpur Sahib by filing a writ petition, bearing CWP No.5827 of 2026, which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.02.026 (Annexure P-6). Relevant extract thereof reads as under:-
“4. Learned State counsel further submits that till the restrictions are imposed by the Administrative Secretary of the concerned department, the petitioners are not be stopped from selling of any products on which restriction is sought to be imposed, in case, they are validly pursuing the vocation as per the norms prescribed. Hence, in case any police official harasses the petitioners and the petitioners file a representation, the same will be decided in a time bound manner by the authorities concerned so as to redress the grievance of the petitioners.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that keeping in view the statement made by learned counsel for the respondents, the present petition may kindly be disposed of having been not pres
