2004 (3) TMI 816 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Gazette Notifications prohibiting the sale of eggs within the municipal limits of Rishikesh.
2. Whether the amended bye-laws, including the prohibition of eggs, are valid under Section 298(2) List I heading F of The U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916.
3. Whether the prohibition on the sale of eggs violates the appellants' rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
4. Competence of the Municipal Board to amend the bye-law and impose a ban on the sale of eggs.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Gazette Notifications Prohibiting the Sale of Eggs:
The appellants challenged the Gazette Notifications on the grounds that they imposed unreasonable restrictions affecting their rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The notifications prohibited the sale of eggs within the municipal limits of Rishikesh. The High Court noted that the notifications were issued in response to representations from citizens, societies, and organizations requesting a ban on the sale of eggs in public places. The municipality issued the notification after obtaining government approval as per the provisions of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916.

2. Validity of the Amended Bye-laws Under Section 298(2) List I Heading F:
The appellants argued that the word 'eggs' is not covered by Section 298(2) List I heading F of the Act, which deals with the sale of animals, meat, or fish intended for human food. The High Court found that the municipality has the general power under Section 298(1) to make bye-laws for promoting or maintaining the health, safety, and convenience of the inhabitants. This general power extends to subjects not specifically enumerated under Section 298(2) List I heading F.

3. Violation of Rights Under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution:
The appellants contended that the total prohibition on the sale of eggs was unreasonable and seriously affected their right to carry on trade. The High Court, after referring to various decisions, concluded that the impugned notification does not violate the appellants' rights under Article 19(1)(g). The Court emphasized that the welfare of the people is a paramount consideration when deciding the validity of a law that allegedly contravenes constitutional guarantees.

4. Competence of the Municipal Board to Amend the Bye-law and Impose a Ban:
The appellants argued that the municipal board could not frame a bye-law in relation to 'eggs' under Section 298 of the Act. The respondents countered that Section 298(1) conferred general power on the Municipal Board to make bye-laws for promoting or maintaining health, safety, and convenience. The High Court upheld this view, stating that the municipality has the power to frame a bye-law unless it is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act or rules. The Court also noted that the appellants did not establish that no special resolution was passed in amending the bye-law, and a mere wrong reference in the preamble does not invalidate the bye-law.

Judgment:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prohibition of the sale of eggs within the municipal limits of Rishikesh was not an unreasonable restriction. The bye-law was in the larger interest of the welfare of the people and consistent with the provisions of the Act. The Court found no merit in the appeal and upheld the High Court's judgment, which concluded that the amended bye-law was valid under Sections 241 and 298 of the Act.

Additional Judgment by D.M. Dharmadhikari, J.:
Justice Dharmadhikari agreed with the reasoning and conclusion of Justice Shivaraj V. Patil but provided additional analysis on the ground of violation of the fundamental right of trade under Article 19(1)(g). He emphasized that the right to practice any profession or carry on any trade can be restricted by law on reasonable grounds in the interest of the general public. He upheld the complete prohibition on the trade of eggs within the municipal limits of Rishikesh, considering the cultural and religious background of the towns and the demands of the residents and pilgrims. The restriction was deemed reasonable and in the interest of maintaining a vegetarian atmosphere in the religious towns.