MOHAMMAD YASEEN ALIAS CHIDDOO Vs. ZILLA PARISHAD GONDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is Qureshi by caste and who carries on the business of slaughtering the animal etc., is aggrieved by the failure of the opposite parties to renew his licence for slaughter of animals. The licence appears to have been not renewed in view of the provisions contained in bye-laws 1(b) and bye-law No.6 of the bye-laws framed under S.239 of the Zilla Parishad and Kshetra Samiti Adhiniyam, 1961 (Annexure-1 to the petition), hereinafter referred to as bye-laws. The petitioner claims a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the aforesaid bye-laws. He also claims for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to renew the petitioner's licence.

(2.) The petitioner was granted licence for slaughtering animal. The licence was renewed from time to time. The last renewal was for the period ending 31-7-1987. He applied for renewal of the licence thereafter but the same has not been done. According to the petitioner, the opposite parties have not renewed the licence in view of the bye-laws 1 (b) and 6 of the aforesaid bye-laws. During arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner challenges Cl. (d) of bye-law No.6 and Cl. (b) of bye-law 1 only and the challenge is only to the extent the said bye-laws prohibit slaughter of bulls and bullocks, the buffaloes and she-buffaloes. The said bye-laws, as amended by Notification dated 28-3-1989, read as under:- According to the petitioner, he has a fundamental right to carry on the business of slaughtering of bulls and bullocks, buffaloes and she-buffalow and this cannot be absolutely prohibited as has been done by bye-laws 1(b) and (d). It is alleged that these provisions are violative of Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. It is further alleged that this bye-law is against the provisions of U. P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act also and that the discretion given under the said bye-laws is arbitrary.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly contended that so far as buffalo, she-buffalo bulls and bullocks are concerned, the petitioner has a fundamental right to carry on business in regard thereto and the only right that the concerned authority may have is to regulate that business in accordance with Art. 19(6) and not prohibit the petitioner from carrying on this business. It has been so laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar, AIR 1958 SC 731. In this case, the vires of S. 3 of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (U.P. Act 1 of 1956) were challenged on the ground that the provision contained in S. 3 of the Act was violative of Art. 19 of the Constitution. In S. 3, as it stood before the amendment made by U.P. Act 33 of 1958, bull, bullocks were included within the definition of 'cow' and, accordingly, there stood absolute prohibition in respect of slaughter of bull and bullock also. The Supreme Court held that the provisions of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, in so far as they relate to bulls and bullocks, are unconstitutional while the remaining provision relating to prohibition against the slaughter of cows was valid and constitutional. In Nisar Ahmad v. District Magistrate Writ Petition No.13695 of 1993, decided on 2-11-1993, a Division Bench of this Court has held that there can be no prohibition against slaughtering of buffaloes.