OM PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants and two other persons filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the Gazette Notifications prohibiting the sale of eggs within the municipal limits of Rishikesh on the ground that notifications issued imposed unreasonable restrictions affecting their rights under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution, as they prohibited the sale of eggs within the municipal limits; the amended bye-laws including the 'eggs' prohibiting their sales within the municipal limits was not valid as 'eggs' is not covered by Section 298 (2) List I Heading F of The U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) Admitted facts, as noticed by the High Court, are that District Rishikesh is by and large a place where many temples exist. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents before the High Court it is stated that several citizens, societies and organizations made representations to the Municipal Board, Rishikesh requesting it to impose restrictions on the sale of 'eggs' also in public places. Having regard to the said demand of citizens the municipality issued notification in question after getting the approval of the Government as per the provisions of the Act. It is also pointed out that the transportation of 'eggs' through municipal limits of Rishikesh is not prohibited in any way. A businessman, who wants to take 'eggs' through Rishikesh, is not prohibited and he may carry on his trade outside the municipal limits of Rishikesh. The relevant bye-laws prior to amendment was :-

(3.) As is evident, in amended bye-law only 'eggs' is added. There was already prohibition in regard to any kind of meat or fish. The High Court has noticed that under bye-laws before amendment prohibition of sale of meat and fish, which was existing for long time, was not challenged.