D. M. Chandrashekhar, C. J. (for self and for K. N. Seth, J.) - (1.) IN these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have impugned certain bye-laws framed by different Zila Parishads. Those bye-laws seek to regulate collection of carcass of animals, storing and flaying them for extracting hides and bones. These bye-laws provide, inter alia, that the right to collect carcass of animals, storing and utilising them in rural areas, should be disposed of by auction and that the highest bidder alone should have such right to the exclusion of all others. These bye-laws also provide that unless a person obtains a licence from the Zila Parishads he cannot carry on the aforesaid activities.
(2.) THE aforesaid bye-laws are purported to have been made under Section 239 of the U. P. Kshettra Samiti and Zila Parishads Adhiniyam, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Sub-Section (1) of that Section empowers Zila Parishads to make bye-laws for their own purposes and for the purposes of Kshettra Samitis in respect of matters required by the Act to be governed by bye-laws and for the purpose of promoting or maintaining the health, safety and convenience of the inhabitants of the rural areas and for the furtherance of the administration of the Act in the Khand and the district. Without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred by sub-Section (1), sub-Section (2) particularises several matters in respect of which such bye-laws can be made by Zila Parishads. The bye-laws made by several Zila Parishads regulating disposal and utilisation of carcass of animals are almost identical, presumably because they were made following the model bye-laws framed by the Government for the guidance of Zila Parishads. The validity of these bye-laws came up for consideration before a single Judge of this court in Jagat Dhari v Zila Parishad, Pratapgarh, AIR 1975 Alld. 135. His lordship held that the Zila Parishad had no right to frame a bye-law providing that the right to collect bones and hides in rural areas shall be auctioned to the highest bidder to the exclusion of all others and that the highest bidder alone shall have that right. That decision was followed by a Division Bench of this court in Civil Misc. Writ No. 158 of 1976 and connected writ petitions. After an elaborate consideration of several provisions of the Act, their Lordships held that those provisions do not confer any power on the Zila Parishad to create monopoly in respect of carcass utilisation and that the Zila Parishad cannot frame a bye-law providing that the right to deal with bones and hides shall vest only in the highest bidder. Their Lordships quashed the bye-laws framed by several Zila Parishads in so far as they provide that the right to collect bones and hides in rural areas shall be auctioned to the highest bidder to the exclusion of all others and that the highest bidder alone shall have the right to carry on such activities. Their Lordships issued a mandamus restraining the Zila Parishads from enforcing the bye-laws to the extent they were quashed.
(3.) THE impugned bye-laws in the present petitions are practically the same as the bye-laws which were considered by the aforesaid Division Bench and the decision of their Lordships is binding on us. But Shri S. P. Gupta and Shri B. D. Agarwal who appeared for some of the respondents Zila Parishads, urged that the aforesaid decisions require reconsideration and that hence we should refer these petitions to a Larger Bench. THEy maintained that the aforesaid two decisions had overlooked the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the State of Maharashtra v. H. N. Mao, AIR 1970 SC 1157. In State of Maharashtra v. H, N. Rao (supra), Sections 365 to 368 and 372 and 385 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act had been impugned. Those sections provide, inter allay that no person shall deposit carcass of animal at a place not appointed in that behalf by the Corporation and that the occupier of any premises in or upon which any animal dies or in or upon which carcass of any animal is found, shall not, unless permitted by the Municipal Authorities, remove or permit to be removed such carcass. Those provisions were impugned as being violative of Articles 19 and 31 of the Constitution. While upholding the Constitutionality of those provisions, the Supreme Court observed thus : "A carcass being in its very nature a noxious thing, if allowed to remain on the premises of the owner or occupier, is likely to cause serious harm to the health and well-being of the residents and other persons in the neighbourhood. The law which imposes on the owner or the occupier of the place in which the carcass is found, duty to remove the carcass or to get it removed through the Municipal agency with the least practicable delay is conceived in the interests of the general public....... The Corporation has control over the contractor to whom the carcasses are entrusted for disposal. It has set apart a place for skinning and has supervision over the disposal of the products. Even by imposing stringent supervision upon persons carrying on the business of skinning carcasses protection of the community against adulteration of its food cannot be effectively secured, because it would not be difficult for a purchaser not subject to the control of the Corporation to remove the carcasses beyond the Corporation limits and then to bring contaminated meat and the fat back into the Corporation area." Relying on the aforesaid observations, it was argued that as carcass is hazardous to health, it is competent for the Zila Parishads to provide that carcasses in a particular local area shall be removed, stored and utilised only by one licensee who is the highest bidder and not by others, that where such removal and utilisation are done by one licensee, it will be easier for Zila Parishads to provide that storing and flaying of carcasses are done in places or premises outside the inhabited area and under proper sanitary conditions so as not to cause nuisance and that such regulation of removal, storage and utilisation would not be possible if they are in the hands of numerous persons even if they are licensed.;