Supreme Court of India
Gulshan & Anr. Etc vs Zila Parishad & Ors on 16 October, 1987
Equivalent citations: 1988 SCR (1) 538, 1987 SCC SUPL. 619, AIRONLINE 1987 SC 338
Author: A.P. Sen
Bench: A.P. Sen
PETITIONER:
GULSHAN & ANR. ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
ZILA PARISHAD & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT16/10/1987
BENCH:
SEN, A.P. (J)
BENCH:
SEN, A.P. (J)
VENKATACHALLIAH, M.N. (J)
CITATION:
1988 SCR (1) 538 1987 SCC Supl. 619
JT 1987 (4) 334 1987 SCALE (2)1466
ACT:
Uttar Pradesh Kshetra Samiti and Zila Parishads
Adhiniyam, 1961: Section 239(2)(E)(a)-Utilisation of carcass
of dead animals in rural area-Bye-law framed providing for
public auction right to trade in-Zila Parishads, Competency
of-Whether Bye-law offends Art. 19(1)(g) of Constitution of
India-State Government Circular dated June 7, 1986 -Effect
of.
HEADNOTE:
%
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section
239(2)(E)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Kshetra Samiti and Zila
Parishads Adhiniyam, 1961, various Zila Parishads framed a
bye-law, providing that right to trade in carcass
utilisation in the rural area of the respective Zila
Parishads shall be put to public auction. Such activities
comprised of taking of the carcass of dead animals to a
specified place, skinning of the carcass, storage of bones
and skins, curing and dyeing of such skins and preparation
of leather goods.
In a writ petition challenging the validity of the said
bye-law, a Single Judge of the High Court struck down the
latter part of the bye-law framed by one of the Zila
Parishads, providing for farming out of the privilege of
utilisation and disposal of carcass of dead animals, on the
ground that it created a monopoly in favour of an individual
or group of individuals.
A Division Bench reiterated that view in two writ
petitions filed before it, and distinguished the decision of
this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Mumbai Upnagar
Gramodyog Sangh, [1969] 2 SCR 392 taking a contrary view on
the ground that the restrictions were reason able within the
meaning of Art. 19(6), in the context of the thickly
populated metropolitan city.
The correctness of the said decision of the Division
Bench was open to question. Another Division Bench referred
the matter to a Full Bench, which expressly repelled the
aforesaid view, and held that it was competent for the Zila
Parishads to frame such bye-laws in exercise of the powers
conferred by s. 239(2)(E)(a) of the Act.
539
Against the various judgments and orders of the High
Court, special leave petitions and appeals by special leave
challenging the constitutional validity of the aforesaid
bye-law, were filed in this Court.
In SLP(C) No. 1900 of 1981, this Court, in order to
protect the interests of persons traditionally engaged in
the work of skinning, tanning etc., directed the State
Government to frame a Model Scheme for carcass utilisation
in the Etawa district at the village panchayat level on an
experimental basis, and passed certain incidental directions
as to the price payable for skins, bones and horns. As
nothing further was done, in partial modification of its
earlier orders, this Court directed the Zila Parishad, Etawa
to issue licence to any person who applied for the same.
In the meantime, the Government of Uttar Pradesh issued
a Circular dated June 7, 1986 stating that in future the
licences for disposal of carcass of animals should be
granted only to registered industrial cooperative societies
formed by the persons engaged in this work.
Disposing of the Special Leave Petitions and civil
appeals,
^
HELD: It is plain upon the reading of the Circular
dated June 7, 1986 issued by the State Government that the
contract system envisaged by the impugned bye-law framed by
the different Zila Parishads in the State has been virtually
abandoned, and the State Government proposes to replace the
system of auction by a system of licensing, giving
preferential right to cooperative societies consisting of
members of the traditional occupation, for the disposal of
carcass of dead animals. [544E-F]
In view of the subsequent policy decision taken by the
State Government, the present controversy no longer
survives. It would be open to different Zila Parishads, in
view of the directive of the State Government, to frame the
appropriate Bye-laws consistent with and for the
implementations of the policy declared by the State
Government. The Zila Parishads, while considering the
question, shall keep in view the directions issued by this
Court on April 15, 1983, and also the order passed
introducing the licence-system in the Zila Parishad, Etawa
on an experimental basis.[544F-G]
For a meaningful effectuation of the policy-decision of
the Government, which is taken in the larger interests of a
sizeable segment of the weaker sections of the society, it
is of utmost importance that the
540
work of formation of cooperative society of the members of
the traditional occupation, who lack the will and the
ability to organise themselves, should be taken up by the
social welfare department of the State Government and every
effort should be made to bring the members of the
traditional occupation within the fold of these cooperative
societies. The social welfare department shall take
effective steps to organise such cooperative societies.
[544H; 545A-B]
Wherever it is not possible to implement the policy-
decision and there is likely to be a loss of revenue or
other compelling reason, it would be open to the Zila
Parishads, as a purely transitory measure and with the prior
concurrence of the State Government, to arrange for carcass
utilisation by auction if the Bye-laws permit such auction.
It is only where, for any compelling reason, the said policy
decision cannot be implemented effectively in any area, that
the concerned Zila Parishad could, with the prior sanction
of the State Government, continue the present contract
system subject to such variation as may be necessary till
the cooperative societies are formed. [545C D1]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition No. 1900 of 1981 etc. From the Judgment and order dated 3.2.1981 of the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P. No. 1924 of 1981.
P.P. Rao, Ambrish Kumar, Mrs. Rani Chhabra, M. Qamaruddin, Mrs. Qamaruddin, A.K. Srivastava, B.B. Tawakley, Mrs. Subhadra, S.N. Singh, C.K. Ratnaparkhi, S.K. Gupta, Uma Dutt, C.P. Lal, M.K. Garg, and Lokesh Kumar for the Petitioners.
Anil Dev Singh, O.P.. Rana, B.P. Maheshwari, Mrs. S. Dikshit, P.K. Pillai, R. Ramachandran, A.K. Srivastava, S.C. Birla, S. Wasim, A. Qadri, N.N. Sharma, Shakeel Ahmad and K.K. Gupta for the Respondents. The following orer of the Court was delivered: