VERMA, J. - (1.) THE grievance of the petitioner Jaipur Pada Meat Merchants Associations (here-in-after called as `the Association') as brought out in the writ petition is that the action of the respondents in issuing the notification dated 8. 2. 1989 published in the Rajasthan Gazette (extraordinary) on 9. 2. 1989 whereby the word `buffalo' has been deleted from the list of animals to be slaughtered in the Slaughter Houses under the Jaipur Municipal Corporation is not valid and prayer is made to allow the petitioner association to slaughter the buffalos as well in the Slaughter Houses maintained by the Municipal Corporation as per regulations and further to quash the notice issued in the month of July 1989 to certain persons for not allowing the slaughtering the buffalos (here-in-after called `pada' ).
(2.) VIDE notification dated 2. 7. 1979 published on 5. 7. 1979, copy of which is attached as Annexure-1 issued u/s 295 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, the buffalo animal was included in the list of animals which could be slaughtered, but after about 10 years of such notification, vide impugned notification Annexure-2 the insertion of word `buffalo' in the notification (Annexure-1) has been revoked. It is the submission of the counsel for the petitioners that the Municipal Corporation had already approved the slaughter Houses, but those have been reserved only for Sheep and Goat meat but lateron on reconsideration the word `buffalo was also included as already stated above. It is the further contention that other Municipal Councils and Boards such as Tonk, Nasirabad, Sawai Madhopur, Kekri in Rajasthan are allowing the buffalo to be slaughted. It is stated that the State Government had no authority to omit to mention the slaughtering of such animal except in accordance with law for which there may be protection provided in the law itself. The action of the respondents is being challenged as unconstitutional as well. The petition has been opposed by the respondent Corporation on the ground that in Jaipur City slaughtering of buffalo was not allowed from the very beginning, but it was in the year 1979 that the notification for slaughtering the buffalo was also issued, but has been now revoked for the reason that in Jaipur City earlier to 1979 the buffalos were not being slaughted for the purpose of meat. FACTS OF S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2945/96/-JAMIL AHMED VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. The present writ petition has been filed with the prayer to issue license to the petitioner for holding the buffalo meat shop at Talab Pada, Baran. It is stated that he was running a shop at Mohalla Talab Pada at Baran when he was issued a notice dated 3. 12. 1994 asking him to close down the buffalo meat shop as the same was being run without obtaining the license from the Municipal Board. It is stated that he had submitted in his application on 16. 12. 1991 for grant of license vide Annexure-2, but the license was not granted for the reason that under the bye-laws of 1964 framed u/s 90 of the Act of 1959, the license for selling the buffalo meat could not have been granted. It is stated that the bye-laws of the Municipal Board, Baran do not prescribe the slaughtering of buffalo which is a common consumable of meat for the poor class.
(3.) IT is the contention of the respondents of the written statement that for the reasons that the buffalo has not been mentioned in the notification for the purpose of slaughtering, it is to be deemed that the slaughtering of buffalo is prohibited. Parties have relied on Supreme Court judgments in the case of Mohd. Faruk vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (1), and Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and others vs. Jan Mohammed Usmanbhai and another (2), Reliance is also placed on a Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of Sarfraz etc. vs. The Municipal Council, Beawar & Ors. (3), and a Single Bench decision in the case of Abdul Majid vs. Municipal Council, Beawar and others, (4) In the case of Mohd. Faruk vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), the notification dated 12. 1. 1967 issued by the Governor of cancelling confirmation of the bye-laws made by the Jabalpur Municipal Committee for inspection and regulation of slaughter houses in so far as the bye-laws relate to slaughter of bulls and bullocks, which had the effect of prohibiting the slaughter of bulls and bullocks within the municipality of Jabalpur imposed a direct restriction under the fundamental right of the petitioner was declared to be ultravires as infringing Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. It was held that the onus of proving to the satisfaction of the Court that the restriction in reasonable lies upon the State. A law requiring that the act which is inheretly dangerous, noxious or injurious to public interest, health or safety or is likely to prove a nuisance to the community, shall be done under a permit or licence of an executive authority, it is not perse unreasonable and no person may claim a licence or permit to do that act as of right. Where the law providing for grant of a licence or a permit confers a discretion upon an administrative authority regulated by rules or principles express or implied, and exercisable in consonance with rules of natural justice, it will be presumed to impose a reasonable restriction. Where, however, power is entrusted to an administrative agency to grant or withhold a permit or licence in its uncontrolled discretion, the law, exfacie infrings the fundamental right. It was further observed as under: `the sentiments of a section of the people may be hurt by permitting slaughter of bulls and bullocks in premises maintained by a local authority. But a prohibition imposed on the exercise of a fundamental right to carry on an occupation, trade or business will not be regarded as reasonable, if it is imposed not in the interest of the general public, but merely to respect the susceptibilities and sentiments of a section of the people whose way of life, belief or thought is not the same as that of the claimant. " ;