Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 583 of 2002
PETITIONER:
Abdulsattar Yusufbhai Qureshi & Ors
RESPONDENT:
State of Gujarat
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/02/2008
BENCH:
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
CIVIL APPEAL No. 593 OF 2002
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division
Bench of the Gujarat High Court 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 of Gujarat. The
Notification was purported to have been issued 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
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
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
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 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"
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
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,\027
(1) in sub-section (1-A), for clauses
(c ) and (d), the following clauses
shall be substituted, namely\027
’(c) a bull;
( d ) a bullock.’
(2) in sub-section (3)\027
( i ) in clause ( a ), sub-clauses
( ii ) and ( iii ) shall be deleted;
(ii) 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.
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 vires 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) SCC 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 Quareshi 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
our view, this position cannot be disputed.
However, in the present case, we are
concerned with the A.P. Act, 1977 which does
not impose a total ban on slaughter of a
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
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 Mirzapur case
(supra), it was, however, 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."
7. Above being the position, this appeal is without merit,
deserves dismissal which we direct.