MD.MUSTAFA QURAISHI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein prayers have been made for issuance of an appropriate writ directing the respondents to issue licence to the petitioners for selling beef, to allow the petitioners to slaughter the animals either under Jharkhand Bovine Animals Prohibition of Slaughter Act or under the provisions of Bihar Preservation and Improvement of Animals Act; to allow the petitioners to deal in the sale and purchase of Animals in the Haat/Bazaar under the provision of Bihar Agricultural Produce Market Act and further for issuance of appropriate writ for quashing the notice dated 12.4.2006 issued by Special Officer, Gumla Municipality restraining the petitioners from doing business of beef.

(2.) LEANED counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners and their ancestors either had been dealing in the trade of beef or have been selling and purchasing the animals from the Haat, for which they were being issued license by the Gumla Municipality under the provisions of Patna Municipal Act/Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act for slaughtering cow and selling beef or were being granted license by the Marketing Board, Gumla under the Bihar Agricultural Produce Market Act for dealing in sale and purchase of the cattle from the Haat, and their business either of selling of beef or selling and purchasing of the cattle from the Haat went off quite smoothly till. 1999, but thereafter Municipal Authority and Police Personnel started putting hindrance in the business of selling beef and also selling and purchasing of cattle which would be evident from notice dated 12.4.2006 (Annexure 4) whereby one of the petitioners was accused to stop selling beef immediately. Thereupon some of the petitioners made representation, vide Annexure 5, requesting therein to allow them to do their business which they were doing from time immemorial but the authority did not pay any heed. Not only that the authority of Gumla Municipality has not been renewing or issuing license under the relevant provision for allowing some of the petitioners for selling beef, as a result of which, petitioners' fundamental right as enshrined under Article 19(1 )(g) of the Constitution' of India is being infringed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel further pointed out that in course of time when the State of Gujarat came with an Act putting complete ban on all kinds of cattle, the said Act was challenged before the High Court of Gujarat and the Gujarat High Court held the .provision of the Act to be ultra verse to, the provision of the Constitution of India. The said decision was challenged before the Hon' ble Supreme Court by the State of Gujarat and the Hon' ble Supreme Court in the said case d State of Gujarat vs. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat and Others [(2005)8 SCC 534] declared the provision of the said Act as intra vires to the Constitution of India but their Lordships while holding the provision of the said Act as intra vires took into consideration several aspects of the matter regarding utility of the cattle even of the old cattle and the prospective scheme of the Government and also the fact that economy of the State of Gujarat is still pre -dominantly agricultural in which cattle is being used in large scale but the said situations upon which the provision of the Gujarat Act was held intra vires are not prevailing in the State of Jharkhand and therefore, any legislation putting forth complete ban on the slaughter of the cattle would affect fundamental right to trade and business of the persons engaged in the State of Jharkhand and therefore, the petitioners are entitled to relief, as prayed for.