ABDULSATIAR YUSUFBHAI QURESHI & ORS. versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [2008] 3 S.C.R. 438 · Decided: 26-02-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 3 S.C.R. 438 
A 
ABDULSATIAR YUSUFBHAI QURESHI & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
(Civil Appeal No. 593 of 2002) 
8 
FEBRUARY 26, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
... 
Gujarat Essential Commodities and Cattle (Control) Act, 
1958- s. 4 (1) (b) and (g); 4(2) and 5 (1)-Notification under-
c 
Putting restriction on slaughter and selling of meat of bulls 
and bullocks - High Court upholding the Notification on the 
ground that restriction was reasonable issued for the purpose 
of reducing the trade of slaughter of bulls and bullocks - On 
appeal, order of High Court upheld. 
D 
State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat 
.
and Ors. 2005 (8) SCC 534; Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh v. 
State of A.P and Ors. 2006 (4) sec 162 - relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 593 
of 2002 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.1.2001 of the High 
Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in W.P. S.C:A. No. 4343/1996. 
Fakhruddin, W.A. Nomani, lmtiaz Ahmed and Naghma 
lmtiaz (for Mis Equity Lex Associates) for the Appellants. 
• 
F 
Saurav Kirpal and Hemantika Wahi for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to 
the judgment of a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court 
G dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants. Appellants 
are engaged in the business of slaughter and selling of meat of 
bulls, bullocks and other animals. In the writ petition, they 
• 
challenged the validity of Notification dated 11.12 .1989 
published in Government Gazette dated 13 .12 .1989 by the State 
H 
438 
ABDULSATTAR YUSUFBHAI QURESHI & ORS. v. 
439 
STATE OF GUJARAT [PASAYAT, J.] 
of Gujarat. The Notification was purported to have been issued A 
in exercise of its powers conferred under clause (b) of sub 
section (1) and clause (g) of sub-section (2) of Section 4 and 
clause (a) of sub section (1) of Section 5 of the Gujarat Essential 
Commodities and Cattle (Control) Act, 1958 (in short the 'Act 
of 1958') as applicable to the State of Gujarat. 
B 
2. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground 
.k .. 
that reasonable restriction was imposed for drastically reducing 
the trade of slaughter of bulls and bullocks. 
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the c 
Notification was beyond the powers of the State government 
and affected the fundamental rights of the appellants of carrying 
on their business of slaughter and selling of meat of bulls and 
bullocks and other animals and also affected their right to life. 
4. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand D 
.. 
submitted that the matter has been conclusively decided by 
several judgments of this Court. 
5. In State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab 
Jamat & Ors. (2005 (8) SCC 534), it was inter-alia observed E 
as follows: 
"10. This was followed by the impugned legislation, the 
Bombay Animal Preservation (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 
1994. The Bombay Act of 1954 referred to as "the principal 
"' 
Act" was further amended by Section 2 of the amending 
F 
Act which reads as•under: 
"2. In the Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954 
(hereinafter referred to as 'the principal Act'), in Section 
5-
' 
(1) in sub-section (1-A), for clauses (c) and (cf), the 
G 
following clauses shall be substituted, namely-
... 
'(c) a bull; 
( d ) a bullock.' 
H 
440 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
(2) in sub-section (3)-
B 
( i) in clause ( a ), sub-clauses ( ii) and ( iii) shall 
be deleted; 
(it) in clause ( b ), after the words 'calf of a cow', the 
words 'bull or bullock' shall be inserted." 
Xx 
xx 
142. For the foregoing reasons, we cannot accept the 
view taken by the High Court. All the appeals are allowed. 
c 
The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. 
The Bombay Animal Preservation (Gujarat Amendment) 
Act, 1994 (Gujarat Act 4 of 1994) is held to be intra vi res 
the Constitution. All the writ petitions filed in the High Court 
are directed to be dismissed." 
D 
6. Similarly in Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh v. State of A P 
E 
F 
G 
H 
& Ors. (2006(4) sec 162) it was observed as follows: 
"64. Before concluding this issue, let us deal with 
Submission ( h ) made by Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh in 
CA No. 3968 of 1994. On behalf of Akhil Bharat Goseva 
Sangh in Submission ( h ) it was urged that the decision 
in Mohd. Hanif Quaresht v. State of Bihar (AIR 1958 SC 
731)would not help Al Kabeer in any way as the position 
at present is
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.