9911796707
TMI Blog1969 (1) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 67, declaring a monopoly in the State of Punjab to hold cattle fairs and prohibiting all local authorities and individuals from holding cattle fairs "at any place in the State". This Ordinance was replaced by the Punjab Cattle Fairs (Regulation) Act 6 of 1968. By s. 3 of the Act it is provided : "(1) The right to hold a cattle fair at any place in the State of, Punjab and to control, manage, and regulate such fair shall vest exclusively in the State Government and shall be exercisable by it, in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, through such persons or authorities as it may deem fit. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force and save as provided by sub-section (1), it shall be unlawful for any person or local authority to hold, control, manage or regulate a cattle fair at any place in the State of Punjab." The expression "Cattle" is defined by S. 2(b) as including a buffalo, camel, cow, donkey, elephant, goat, horse mule, sheep and their young-ones and such other animals as the State Government may by notification specify. By S. 4(1) authority is vested in the State Gov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther sums of money (not being tolls and taxes) received or realized under the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder, and all donations or grants made to the Fund by the State Government, a local authority or any other person are to be credited. By s. 18 penalties are prescribed for contravention of the provisions of sub-s. (2) of s. 3. Power is conferred by s. 21 to make regulations to provide against the outbreak or spread of fire and for certain other matters. By s. 22 the State Government is authorised to make rules for carrying out the Purposes of the Act. The Act, however, as originally enacted contained no definition of the expression "cattle fair". Validity of the Punjab Cattle Fairs (Regulation) Act, 1967 was challenged in a group of petitions moved before the High Court of Punjab by persons interested in holding cattle fairs: Mohinder Singh Sawhney v. State of Punjab and Others(A.I.R. [1968] Punjab 391) Before the High Court one of the contentions raised by the petitioners was that the provisions of the Act were "Vague and ambiguous", and on that account the Act. was ultra vires. The Court accepted that contention. The Court observed that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld not be enforced without re-enactment. The High Court of Punjab in Mohinder Singh Sawhney's case(A.I.R. [1968] Punjab 391) "...... in our opinion the petitions must succeed on the ground that the legislation is vague, uncertain and ambiguous.", and also (at p. 394) that-. ".........as the infirmity of vagueness goes to the root of the matter, legislative enactment has to be struck down as a whole even if some of its provisions are unexceptionable in themselves." But the rule that an Act of a competent legislature may be "struck down" by the Courts on the ground of vagueness is alien to our Constitutional system. The Legislature of the State of Punjab, was competent to enact legislation in respect of "fairs" vide entry 28 of List 11 of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. A law may be declared invalid by the superior Courts in India if the legislature has no power to enact the law or that-the law violates any of the fundamental rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution or is inconsistent with any constitutional provision, but not on the ground that it is vague. It is true that in Claude C. Connally v. General Construction Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rve, that we are unable to agree that the Act as originally enacted was unenforceable even on the' ground of vagueness. It is true that the expression "cattle fair" was not defined in the Act. The Legislature, when it did not furnish the definition of the expression "cattle fair" must be deemed to have used the expression in its ordinary signification, as meaning, a periodical concourse of buyers and sellers in a place generally for sale and purchase of cattle at times or on occasions ,ordained by custom. We agree with the High Court that by enacting the Act the State was not attempting to prevent all transactions for sale and purchase of cattle. The State took upon itself by the Act a monopoly of conducting fairs, but it did not thereby seek to monopolise all transactions of sale and purchase in cattle. This is now made clear the definition of "cattle fair" in s. 2(bb). A law which vests in the State a monopoly to carry on a certain trade or business to the extent that it has direct relation to the creation of the monopoly, is not open to challenge on the ground of violation of the freedom guaranteed by Art. 19(1) (g). As pointed out by this Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s regularly conducted by private parties and not as a fair. Any attempt made by the Officers of the State claiming to exercise authority under the Act to prohibit cattle markets is without authority of law. The Act also does not invest the State with authority to declare private property of an individual or of a local authority, a fair area. Section 4(2). enables the Fair Officer to define a fair area, to reserve sites or places for certain facilities, to make temporary allotment for commercial and other purposes and to arrange for watch and ward and for construction of temporary offices. The Cattle Fair Officer is not thereby authorised to hold fairs on lands not belonging to the State. In defining a "fair area" and in making reservation, allotment, construction and arrangements of the nature mentioned in cls. (i) to (v) of sub-s. (2) of s. 4 the Cattle Fair Officer cannot trespass upon private property. It is implicit in the provisions of the Act that the State will hold cattle fairs on its own lands and not on private lands. The words used in s. 4 are wide and may be capable of the interpretation that the right to hold, control, manage and regulate a cattle fair at a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Others ([1962] 2 S.C.R. 382) and to a decision of the Madras High Court in Mandivil Vania Pudukudi Ramunni Kurup and Others v. Panchayat Board, Badagara and Others (A.I.R. [1954] Mad. 754) in support of the plea that a right to hold a fair is property. But those cases have no bearing on the question arising in these petitions. A law which creates a monopoly to carry on a business in the State and thereby deprives the citizens of, the right to carry on that business by virtue of Art. 19(6) is not open to challenge on the ground that it infringes the Fundamental right guaranteed by Art. 19(1) (g) : The law win not also be exposed to attack on the ground that the right to carry on business is property, for the validity of restrictions on the right to carry on occupation, trade or business, or to practise any profession must be adjudged only in the light of Art. 19(6). In any event the presumption of reasonableness of a statute creating a monopoly in the State may come to aid not only in respect of the claim to enforce the right under Art. 19(1)(g) but under Art. 19(1)(f) as well. Section 15 which authorises the State to call upon a Panchayat Samiti of a Municipal Committee, within w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mandi)", under the management of the District Fair Officer, and the Municipal Committee was required to arrange to supply water and electricity, to make suitable sanitary arrangements, to deposit the income from Baisakhi Cattle Fair in Government Treasury in Cattle Fair Fund and to deliver the record in that behalf to the Fair Officer. The Section Officer, District Amritsar, also served an order, purported to be made under s. 4 (2) (i) read with s. 2 (d) of the Punjab Cattle Fairs (Regulation) Act, 1967, specifying the fair area, for the purpose of controlling, managing, regulating and holding the Cattle Fair from October 16, 1968 to October 27, 1968, at Ram Talui Ki Mandi described as "2 Kilometres from the main building situated in Cattle Fair Ground at Ramtabi' (Mal Mandi) Amritsar". A Municipal Committee is not, according to the decisions of this Court, a "citizen" within the meaning of Art. 19. The Municipal Committee is, therefore, not entitled to claim protection of. any of the fundamental rights under Art. 19. But the State is incompetent to declare land belonging to the Municipal Committee as falling within the fair area, and to take possession of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t on that piece of land from the first to the fourth of every month. He also asserted that he has been holding cattle markets on the lands, in his lawful possession at Kurali, Anandpur Saheb, Marunda (District Rupar) within the State of Punjab. According to the petitioner, for the purpose of holding cattle markets on the lands.in his occupation at Hussainpur, the petitioner had constructed a well for providing water to. the cattle, with sheds, and mangers. He further claimed that he provides chaff cutters, tents, charpais and all other amenities which are essential for the cattle and the merchants. It appears from the averments made by the petitioner that he is holding cattle fairs. No declaration was made defining any fair area which included' the lands of the petitioner. The State, for reasons already set out, is not entitled to hold a cattle fair on the land in the occupation of the petitioner without providing for compensation as guaranteed under Art. 31(2). But on that account the petitioner is not entitled to hold a cattle fair even on his own lands. The petitioner is Jagtar Singh. He claims that he has obtained for the period April 1, 1968 to March 31, 1969, from the Munici ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the nature of a market for sale of sheep and goats brought by intending sellers for slaughter. Such a place cannot be called a fair. It was urged on behalf of the State that since the petitioner was collecting brokerage and carrying on the business of a broker, he was bound to take-out a licence under s. 9 of the Act. But a person carrying on his business within the fair area lawfully declared is required to obtain a licence, but not in respect of his business in a cattle market. The petition filed by Jagtar Singh must, therefore, be allowed and the order declaring the petitioner's land as fair area and the intimation calling upon him to stop his business of cattle market is unauthorised. The petitioner in these petitions are Narain Singh and another. They claim that they are in ,legal possession" of different pieces of land taken oil lease within the State of Punjab at Khanna, Doraha (District Ludhiana), sunam (District Sangrur) and also in other Districts where they have been holding cattle markets for the last many years. They claimed that they provide the Prospective sellers and purchasers facilities like cots for resting, drinking water, sheds,, mangers, chaff-cutters, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
