GULSHAN & ANR. ETC. versus ZILA PARISHAD & ORS.

Citation: [1988] 1 S.C.R. 538 · Decided: 16-10-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN, M.N. VENKATACHALIAH · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
GULSHAN & ANR. ETC. 
v. 
ZILA PARISHAD & ORS. 
OCTOBER 16, 1987 
B 
[A.P. SEN AND M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, /J.] 
..l. 
Uttar Pradesh Kshetra Samiti and Zita Parishads ildhiniyam, 
1961: Section 239(2)(E)(a)-Utilisation of carcass of deal animals in 
: 
rural area-Bye-law framed providing for public auction rght to trade 
in-Zila Parishads-Competency of-Whether Bye-law •!fends Art. 
c 19( l)(g) of Constitution of India-State Government Ci-cular dated 
~ 
June 7, 1986--Effect of. 
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 239(3(E)(a) of the 
Uttar Pradesh· Kshetra Samiti and Zila Parishads Adhhiyam, 1961, 
various Zila Parishads framed a bye-law, providing that :ight to trade 
D 
in carcass utilisation in the rural area of the respective Zib Parishads 
shall be put to public auction. Such activities comprised of lacing of the 
carcass of dead animals to a specified place, skinning of th1 carcass, 
storage of bones and skins, curing and dyeing of such skins um pre-
paration of leather goods. 
E 
In a writ petition challenging the validity of the said byelaw, a 
Single Judge of the High Court struck down the latter part of the 
bye-law framed by one of the Zita Parishads, providing for farm~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 individua: or 
group of individuals. 
F 
f., 
A Division Bench reiterated that view in two writ petitions fed 
before it, and distinguished the decision of this Cf)urt in State of Maa-
rashtra v. Mumbai Upnagar Gramodyog Sangh, [1969) 2 SCR 92 
taking a contrary view on the ground that the restrictions were rea•n-
able within the meaning of Art. 19( 6), in the context of the thidy 
G populated metropolitan city. 
The correctness of the said decision of the Division Bench m 
open to question. Another Division Bench referred the matter to a bll 
Bench, which expressly repelled the aforesaid view, a11d held that it as 
competent for the Zila Parishads to frame such bye-laws in exercis of 
H the powers conferred bys. 239(2)(E)(a) of the Act. 
538 
• 
GULSHAN v. ZILA PARISHAD 
539 
Against the various judgments and orders of the High Court, A 
special leave petitions and appeals by special leave challenging the con· 
stitutional 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, tan-
ning etc., directed the State Government to frame a Model Scheme for B 
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 Zita 
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 dis-
posal of carcass of animals should be granted only to registered indust-
rial cooperative societies formed by the persons engaged in this work. 
Disposing oftbe Special Leave Petitions and civil appeals, 
HELD: It is plain upon the reading of the Circular dated June 
c 
D 
7, 1986 issued by the State Government that the contract system en· 
visaged by the impugned bye-law framed by the different Zita 
Parishads in the State has been virtually abandoned, and the State 
E 
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. [S44E-F] 
In view of the subsequent policy decision taken by the State 
F 
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 Zita Parishads, while considering the question, shall keep in view 
the directions issued by this Court on April 15, 1983, and also the order G 
passed introducing the licence-system in the Zita 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 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.