The has quashed a controversial notification issued by the that prohibited the preparation, sale, and storage of non-vegetarian food and eggs in areas surrounding the Somnath Temple. The court ruled that the administrative order lacked legal authority and infringed upon the of restaurant owners to conduct lawful business under . The ruling, delivered by Justice Nisha M. Thakore on , marks a significant judicial intervention in the limits of local regulatory powers over private commercial activities.
The challenge was brought by Aakib Aminbhai Khan, owner of M/s Taj Restaurant, and other local business operators who have maintained eateries in the Prabhas Patan area for several decades. These establishments, which are duly licensed under the , had been operating until the issuance of the , notification by the District Magistrate. The directive sought to enforce a total ban on non-vegetarian food items within specified routes and a 500-meter radius of the temple, citing the religious sentiments of pilgrims and the need to preserve the sanctity of the holy site.
Authority and Legislative Limits
In her judgment, Justice Thakore scrutinized the scope of the District Magistrate's power under the . The court observed that while authorities are empowered to regulate public order, safety, and health, such power does not extend to dictating dietary choices or imposing permanent bans on legitimate trade. The court noted that recent amendments to the Gujarat Police Act, specifically those passed in 2018, had explicitly removed "eating houses" from the list of establishments subject to such police regulation.
"The learned Magistrate has acted
as the scope of
is in the nature of regulate operations like licensing, to regulate health, safety and traffic but cannot impose an absolute ban on a lawful trade or even dictate the food to be served within the premises like eating house,"
the judgment stated. The court further emphasized that
"a complete ban on running business under a statute that only grants power to regulate generally violates the fundamental right to carry on trade or business."
Proportionality and Fundamental Rights
The petitioners argued that their businesses were located away from the immediate temple premises and that they were willing to abide by stringent hygiene conditions to ensure that their operations caused no disturbance or visual offense to passing pilgrims. The court accepted this perspective, applying the . It reasoned that the state failed to demonstrate why a total prohibition was the only means to achieve the goal of maintaining religious order, noting that less restrictive alternatives, such as mandatory screening or opaque glass covering, were not adequately considered.
Justice Thakore clarified that while religious sentiments are protected, they must be balanced against other constitutional guarantees.
"The sole reason assigned by the Learned Magistrate to impose ban is the religious sentiments of sections of society who are against the visual display of non-vegetarian food on street however, such display of non-vegetarian food on street cannot be read as an
under
,"
the court observed. Consequently, the court mandated that while the business can resume, the owners must ensure that their premises are well-covered, ventilated, and operated under strict sanitary standards, explicitly forbidding the open display of carcasses or the disposal of waste on public roads.
Judicial Developments and Interim Status
The legal journey of this dispute took a complex turn shortly after the High Court's decision. While the nullified the notification on October 30, a of the High Court—comprising Acting Chief Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak and Justice Nirzar S. Desai—subsequently stayed that order on the same day. The observed that the influx of pilgrims during the Gujarati New Year and the festive season necessitated that the be maintained, effectively keeping the ban in force until the appeals could be heard.
Dissatisfied with the interim stay, the restaurant owners approached the . In a hearing on , a bench led by Justice MM Sundresh and Justice PB Varale declined to grant an immediate stay of the ’s order. The Supreme Court emphasized that it did not intend to rule on the merits of the ban at this preliminary stage, but rather urged the Gujarat High Court to prioritize and dispose of the pending appeals within two months. Justice Sundresh orally remarked during the proceedings that a "middle path" might be necessary to balance the conflicting interests of commercial freedom and religious observance in the temple town.
The restaurant owners remain in a state of legal limbo as they await the final hearing before the High Court’s . The court’s initial decision to strike down the notification remains a cornerstone of the legal battle, underscoring the tension between the state's discretionary powers under colonial-era police laws and the modern constitutional protections afforded to small business owners. As the deadline set by the Supreme Court approaches, the outcome of these proceedings is expected to provide further clarity on how local authorities may, or may not, restrict commercial activities in the vicinity of protected religious sites across the state.
business license - religious sentiment
