- (1.) I. S. Mathur, J. The petitioner, who is Qureshi by caste and who carries on the business of slaughtering the animal etc. , is aggrieved by the failure of the opposite parties to renew his licence for slaughter of animals. The licence appears to have been not renewed in view of the provisions con tained in Bye-laws 1 (b) and Bye- law No. 6 of the bye-laws framed under Section 289 of the Zila Parishad and Kshetra Samiti Adhiniyam, 1961 (An-nexure-1 to the petition), hereinafter referred to as bye-laws. The petitioner claims a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the aforesaid bye-laws. He also claims for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to renew the petitioner's licence.
(2.) THE petitioner was granted licence for slaughtering animal. THE licence was renewed from time to time. THE last renewal was for the period ending on 31-7-1987. He applied for renewal the licence thereafter but the same has not been done. According to the petitioner, the opposite parties have not renewed the licence in view of the bye-laws l (%\ and 6 of the afore said bye-laws. During arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner challenges clause (g) of Bye-law No. 6 and clause (g-) of bye-laws only and the challenge is only to the extent to the said bye-laws prohibit slaughter of bulls and bullocks, baffaloes and she baffaloes. THE said bye-laws as amended by notification dated 28-4-1989 read as under : According to the petitioner, he has a fundamental right to carry on the business of slaughtering of bulls and bullocks, buffaloes and she buffaloes and this cannot be absolutely prohibited as has been done by Bye-laws and 6 (g ). It is alleged that these provisions are violative of Article 19 (l) (g) of the Constitution of India. It is further alleged that this bye-law is against the provisions of U. P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act also and that the discretion given under the said bye-laws is arbitrary. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned b land ing counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly contended that so far as buffaloes she buffaloes bulls and bullock are concerned, the petitioner has a fundamental right to carry on business in regard thereto and the only right that the concerned authority may have is to regulate that business in accordance with Article 19 (6) and not prohibit the petitioner from carrying oh this business. It has been so laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Hanif Qureshi and others v. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1958 SC 731. In this case, the vires of Section 3 of the U. P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (U. P. Act I of 1955) and challenged on the ground that the provision contained in Sec. 3 of the Act was violative of Article 19 of the Constitu tion. In Section 3 as it stood before the amendment made by U. P. Act 33 of 1958 i. e. bull, bullock) made included within the definition of 'cow' and, accord ingly, there stood absolute prohibition in respect of slaughter of bull and bullock also. The Supreme Court held that the provisions of the U. P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, in so far as they relate to bulls and bullocks, are unconstitutional while the remaining provision relating to prohibition against the slaughter of cows was valid and constitutional. In Nisar Ahmad v. District Magistrate and others Writ Petition 'no. 13695 of 1993 decided on 2-11-1993, a division bench of this Court has held that there can be no prohibition against slaughtering of buffaloes. i As a consequence of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. H. Quareshi case (supra) the U. P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1995 was amended by U. P. Act No. 33 of 1958. By this amendment, the word 'bulls, bullock', contained in clause (b) of Section 2 were deleted and (Section 3 was substituted, which is now reads as follows i "3. Prohibition of cow slaughter.- (1) Except as hereinafter provided, no person shall slaughter or cause to be slaughtered, or offer or cause to be offered for slaughter- (a) a cow, or (b) a bull or bullock, unless he has obtained in respect thereof a certificate in writing, from the competent authority of the area in which the bull or bullock is to be slaughtered, certify ing that it is fit for slaughter, in any place in Uttar Pradesh ; anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or an usage or custom to the contrary notwithstand ing. (2) No bull or bullock in respect of which a certificate has been issued under sub-section (l) (b) shall be slaughtered at any place other than the place indicated in the certificate. (3 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The plain reading of Section 3 of U. P. Act 1956 leaves no manner of doubt that, according to the said provision, there could be complete prohibition against slaughtering of cow only and there could be no such prohibition against the slaughtering of buffaloe, she buffaloe, bull and bullock. The only Obligation that the concerned person will have, in respect of bull and bullock is to obtain, in respect thereof, a certificate in writing from the competent authority of the area in which the bull or bullock is to be slaughtered, certify ing that it is fit for slaughter; it has been so provided in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act 1 of 1956. It has been further provided in the said Section 3 that 'anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or an usage or custom to the contrary notwithstanding' the provisions of this section will apply. No bye-law which is inconsistent with these provisions can survive or be held to be valid.
(3.) IT is also evident from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. H. Quareshi case that the trade or business of slaughtering of bulls, bullocks, buffaloes and she buffaloes is a fundamental right. Accordingly, any law or bye-law made by any authority completing prohibiting this right will be violative of Article 19 of the Constitution of India. The matter relating to such a provision came for consideration in a number of cases before this Court. In Fazal v. District Magistrate, Jalaun in capacity of Administrator Nagar Palika, Konch, District Jalaun and others, 1985 UPLBEC 146, Bye-law No. 1 defined animal and in this defini tion, 'bullock' was included. However, by notification dated 18-11-1949, this bye-law was amended and the word 'bullock' was deleted from it. In spite of such deletion, the opposite parties did not renew the licence of the peti tioner. The petition was allowed. The order of the District Magistrate passed in his capacity as Administrator of Nagar Palika in regard to the slaughter of unserviceable bullocks by the petitioner was quashed and it was directed that the respondents shall not interfere with the right of the petitioner to slaughter and sell unserviceable bullocks within the limits of the Nagar Palika, Konch on the basis of the impugned order, dated 23rd April, 1984. It was further directed that the Pashudhan Vikas Adhikari shall consider and dispose of the application if and When made by the petitioner, for the grant of the certificate in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above.;