SHAHIDA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India styled as Public Interest Litigation has been instituted for consideration of the representation dtd. 17/1/2022 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) addressed to the District Magistrate, Mathura (respondent No. 2 herein) to grant leave to the persons / non vegetarians of such 22 Wards of Mathura Vrindawan Nagar Nigam, Mathura notified as "Holy Place of Pilgrimage" under Notification dtd. 10/9/2021 issued by the Addl. Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. and consequently, notification imposing complete ban on running meat, fish, egg shops etc., and suspending the licence of shops, non veg hotels etc., with immediate effect and for permitting easy transportation of such restricted materials from outside for marriage and other ceremonial functions. It is also prayed that the local police may not harass such persons in transporting the restricted materials from outside into such 22 notified Wards.

(2.) It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that she is a permanent resident of Mewati Mohalla, Matiya Gate, Govind Nagar, District Mathura and is a social worker elected as Parshad Ward No. 38, Matiya Gate, District Mathura. The State Government under Notification dtd. 10/9/2021 has notified 22 Wards of Mathura Vrindawan Nagar Nigam as "Holy Place of Pilgrimage". A consequential order dtd. 11/9/2021 has been passed by the Food Processing Officer, Food Safety and Drugs Administration, Mathura whereunder the registration of the shops selling meat and non vegetarian restaurants have been suspended with immediate effect. It is contended that on account of such restrictions imposed, the non vegetarian persons residing in the Wards so notified are being deprived of their choice of meals and also from carrying on their business and livelihood.

(3.) It is further argued that the restriction imposed is violative of Article 19 (1) (g) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The authorities are also not permitting the transportation of the restricted materials from other Wards where there is no such restriction for personal consumption or consumption in marriages and other ceremonial functions which restriction is most arbitrary and cannot be permitted. The representation on behalf of the residents of the Wards seeking leave for easy transportation of the restricted item have not been considered and as such, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court for redressal of her grievance which in fact is the grievance of the majority of the population of the Wards declared as "Holy Place of Pilgrimage".