9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Discriminatory levy of grazing rates on 'foreign cattle' passing through Madhya Pradesh. 2. Constitutional validity of rules prescribing routes and duration for 'foreign cattle' transit through the state. Analysis: 1. The judgment addresses the challenge against the discriminatory levy of grazing rates on 'foreign cattle' passing through Madhya Pradesh. The petitioners, nomad graziers from Gujarat and Rajasthan, argued that the differential treatment violated their Fundamental Rights under Article 14, 19(e)(f)(g), and Article 301. The State of Madhya Pradesh defended the rules as necessary to regulate the influx of 'foreign cattle' to prevent devastation and protect forest wealth. The court found no rational basis for the distinction between cattle owners of Madhya Pradesh and other states. Geographical classification cannot justify prejudicial treatment, and the justification of protecting forest wealth was deemed insufficient. The court held that all graziers have the right to pass through the state with their cattle, subject to reasonable restrictions for public interest. The differential grazing rates were quashed as unjustified, and the court directed uniform rates for all cattle passing through Madhya Pradesh. 2. The judgment also examined the constitutional validity of rules prescribing routes and duration for 'foreign cattle' transit through Madhya Pradesh. The court approved the prescription of routes to prevent cattle straying and causing damage to forests. However, the imposition of a 45-day limit for 'foreign cattle' to pass through the state was deemed unconstitutional. The court noted that the same rules restricting grazing in the same unit for a month applied to all cattle, regardless of origin. Therefore, the 45-day limit for 'foreign cattle' was found arbitrary and unjustified. Consequently, the court struck down the 45-day limit, directing the respondents to apply the same rules uniformly to all cattle passing through Madhya Pradesh. The writ petitions were allowed, and the petitioners were awarded costs.
|
