ABDULSATIAR YUSUFBHAI QURESHI & ORS. v. STATE OF GUJARAT (Civil Appeal No. 593 of 2002) FEBRUARY 26, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] Gujarat Essential Commodities and Cattle (Control) Act,
1958- s. 4 (1) (b) and (g); 4(2) and 5 (1)-Notification under- c Putting restriction on slaughter and selling of meat of bulls and bullocks – High Court upholding the Notification on the ground that restriction was reasonable issued for the purpose of reducing the trade of slaughter of bulls and bullocks – On appeal, order of High Court upheld.
State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat and Ors. 2005 (8) SCC 534; Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh v. State of A.P and Ors. 2006 (4) sec 162 – relied on. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 593
of 2002 From the Judgment and Order dated 20.1.2001 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in W.P. S.C:A. No. 4343/1996. Fakhruddin, W.A. Nomani, lmtiaz Ahmed and Naghma lmtiaz (for Mis Equity Lex Associates) for the Appellants. Saurav Kirpal and Hemantika Wahi for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court G dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants. Appellants are engaged in the business of slaughter and selling of meat of bulls, bullocks and other animals. In the writ petition, they challenged the validity of Notification dated 11.12 .1989
published in Government Gazette dated 13 .12 .1989 by the State ABDULSATTAR YUSUFBHAI QURESHI & ORS. v. STATE OF GUJARAT [PASAYAT, J.] of Gujarat. The Notification was purported to have been issued A in exercise of its powers conferred under clause (b) of sub section (1) and clause (g) of sub-section (2) of Section 4 and clause (a) of sub section (1) of Section 5 of the Gujarat Essential Commodities and Cattle (Control) Act, 1958 (in short the 'Act of 1958') as applicable to the State of Gujarat.
2. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground .k .. that reasonable restriction was imposed for drastically reducing the trade of slaughter of bulls and bullocks. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the c Notification was beyond the powers of the State government and affected the fundamental rights of the appellants of carrying on their business of slaughter and selling of meat of bulls and bullocks and other animals and also affected their right to life. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand D
submitted that the matter has been conclusively decided by several judgments of this Court. 5. In State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat & Ors. (2005 (8) SCC 534), it was inter-alia observed E as follows:
"10. This was followed by the impugned legislation, the Bombay Animal Preservation (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1994. The Bombay Act of 1954 referred to as "the principal Act" was further amended by Section 2 of the amending
Act which reads as•under: "2. In the Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the principal Act'), in Section 5- (1) in sub-section (1-A), for clauses (c) and (cf), the
following clauses shall be substituted, namely- '(c) a bull; ( d ) a bullock.' (2) in sub-section (3)- ( i) in clause ( a ), sub-clauses ( ii) and ( iii) shall be deleted; (it) in clause ( b ), after the words 'calf of a cow', the words 'bull or bullock' shall be inserted."
Xx xx 142. For the foregoing reasons, we cannot accept the view taken by the High Court. All the appeals are allowed. c The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. The Bombay Animal Preservation (Gujarat Amendment)
Act, 1994 (Gujarat Act 4 of 1994) is held to be intra vi res the Constitution. All the writ petitions filed in the High Court are directed to be dismissed." 6. Similarly in Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh v. State of A P
& Ors. (2006(4) sec 162) it was observed as follows: "64. Before concluding this issue, let us deal with Submission ( h ) made by Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh in CA No. 3968 of 1994. On behalf of Akhil Bharat Goseva
Sangh in Submission ( h ) it was urged that the decision in Mohd. Hanif Quaresht v. State of Bihar (AIR 1958 SC 731)would not help Al Kabeer in any way as the position at present is completely different. In that decision, total ban on slaughter of old cattle was struck down on the
ground that there was scarcity of fodder resources, which however, according to Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh, does not exist any longer. In State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat (2005(8) SCC 534) it has also
been held that in view of the position that exists now i.e adequate availability of cattle feed resources. the question of striking down total ban on slaughter of old cattle for scarcity of fodder resources would not arise at all. In ou~ view, this position cannot be disputed. However. 1n the
present case, we are concerned with the A.P Act, 1977 which does not impose a total ban on slaughter of a …. • .. ABDULSATTAR YUSUFBHAI QURESHI & ORS. v. STATE OF GUJARAT [PASAYAT, J.]
particular type of bovine animal, whereas in Mirzapur case (supra) this Court dealt with the provisions of the Bombay Animal Preservation (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1994 which imposes a total ban on slaughter of cow and its progeny.
So far as the A. P. Act, 1977 is concerned, there is no total ban on slaughter of buffaloes. Therefore, in our view, this submission of the Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh cannot at all be accepted, as we are not concerned with the case of
striking down a particular provision which imposes an absolute prohibition of slaughter of particular types of bovine animals. In Mirzapurcase (supra), it was, however, c not held that permitting slaughter of bovine cattle by itself is unconstitutional. This being the position, we are not in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant that
-Submission (h) can come to their assistance for the purpose of banning of slaughter of buffaloes by Al Kabeer." D 7. Above being the position, this appeal is without merit, deserves dismissal which we direct.
K.K.T. Appeal dismissed.