LAWS(GJH)-2001-1-59

ABDULSATTAR YUSUFBHAI QURESHI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On January 16, 2001
ABDULSATTAR YUSUFBHAI QURESHI Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are engaged in the business of slaughter and selling of meat of bulls, bullocks and other animals. By this petition, they question the constitutional validity of the Notification dated 11-12-1989 published in Government Gazette dated 13-12-1989 by the State of Gujarat, which is purported to have been issued by it in exercise of its powers conferred under clause (b) of subsection (1) and clause (g) of subsection (2) of Section 4 and clause (a) of subsection (1) of Section 5 of the Gujarat Essential Commodities and Cattle (Control) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act of 1958') as applicable to the State of Gujarat. By the impugned Notification, the earlier Notification issued on the same subject and under the same provisions of law dated 15-10-1976 has been modified, in so far as the imposition of ceiling of maximum number of bulls and bullocks that may be slaughtered in the City of Ahmedabad. Prior to the impugned Notification, the existing Notification dated 15-10-1976 published in Government Gazette dated 15-11-1976 issued under the provisions of Section 4 and 5 of the Act prescribed maximum limits for slaughter of bulls and bullocks in different States. For Ahmedabad City, the permissible maximum number of bulls and bullocks that may be slaughtered in a week was 363. By the impugned Notification issued on 11-12-1989 and published on 13-12-1989, only for Ahmedabad City the permissible maximum limit of number of bulls and bullocks that may be slaughtered is stated to have been ludicrously reduced from 363 per week to 60 per year.

(2.) The petitioners challenge the validity of the impugned Notification on several grounds. Firstly, it is submitted that repeated attempts made by State of Gujarat and other States like Madhya Pradesh to impose complete ban on slaughter of bulls and bullocks did not succeed. The Supreme Court struck down such complete ban on slaughter of such bulls and bullocks which have outlived their utility on the ground that it is unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right of the dealers in meat and those engaged in the business of slaughter houses under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hasmattullah v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1996 SC 2076 in which all earlier decisions of the Supreme Court earliest from the case of Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar AIR 1958 SC 731, Abdul Hakim Quraishi v. State of Bihar AIR 1961 SC 448 and lastly Mohd. Faruk v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1970 SC 93 have been considered to hold that total ban of slaughter of bulls and bullocks is ultravires the Constitution.

(3.) On behalf of the petitioner, learned Sr. Counsel Shri Arun Mehta contends that the impugned Notification putting such ludicrously low ceiling on slaughter of bulls and bullocks in Ahmedabad City is nothing but an indirect attempt to impose complete ban on slaughter of bulls and bullocks. Reducing the maximum permissible number of slaughter to 60 bulls and bullocks per year virtually amounts to one bullock per week, and it is so ludicrously low that it virtually deprives the petitioners of their right to trade in slaughter of bulls and bullocks and in dealing in business of selling beef. In this respect, it is submitted that meat of bulls and bullocks is a non-vegetarian diet of poorer sections of the society belonging to Muslims, Christians and even modern Hindu community. The impugned Notification is nothing but an attempt to appease the religious sentiments of a section of citizens who believe in vegetarianism and are against killing of cow and its progeny. The contention, thus, is that issuance of the impugned Notification, in effect, is an exercise of fraud upon the powers of the State Government.