LAKSHMAN AND ORS. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [1983] 3 S.C.R. 124 · Decided: 06-05-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Case Allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
• 
124 
LAKSHMAN AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
May6, 1983 
[D. A. DESAI AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950-Artic/e 19 (l) (e), ( f) and (g)-State Govern-
ment-JI could discriminate between owners of cattle· belonging to its own State 
and other States-If could levy higher grazing charges on owners of'foreign clzttle' 
-If could restrict the route and period of transit of 'foreign catile' through the 
State. 
With the purported object of inhibiting the. influx of cattle belonging to 
owners of neighbouring States passing through the State of Madhya Pradesh, 
the State Government issued a notification under rule 7 of the. M.P. Grazing 
Rates Rules, 1979 pcescribing the route to be followed by such cattle (described 
as 'foreign cattle') whiie in transit. The notificatibn also stipulated that foreign 
cattle should leave the State within a period of 45 days after the issue of the 
licence, tha-t the owner should pay grazing charges of Rs. 10 per buffalo and 
Rs. 5 per goat or sheep for the period of transit. A notification issued under 
rule 6, however, prescribed grazing chii.rge of Re. 1 per year fOr each goat or 
sheep belonging to residCnts of the State of Madhya Pradesh. No charge was 
prescribed in respect of buffaloes. 
· 
The petitioners, nomad graziers of Gujarat and Rajasthan who pass 
through the State of Madhya Pradesh with their cattle en routes to other 
neighbouring States, in their petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution 
contende.d that the notification issued under rule 7 contravened their funda-
mental rights under Articles 14, 19 (1) (e), ( f) and (g) and also their right 
under Article 301 of the Constitution· and that therefore it was invalid. 
Allowing the petitions, 
HELD: There was no rational basis for the- distinction made between 
owners of cattle belonging to Madhya Pradesh and owners o': cattle brlC?nging 
G 
to other States and the levy of prohibited grazing rates on owners of •foreign 
cattle'. There was equally no justification in prescribing the ceiling of 45 days 
during which the cattle must pass through the State. While in the case of 
cattle belonging to the residents of the State of Madhya Pradesh the levy was 
for one year there was no reason why the charge should be .for 45 days in the 
case of cattle belonging to graziers of other States. [127 G-11, 128 A-BJ 
H 
under our Constitution a citizen has the right to move freely throughout 
the territory of India subject to reasonable restrictions. To whichever State a 
grazier may belong, he has the right to pass and repass through the State of 
·~ 
·,if. 
~! 
I 
/ 
LAXMAM v. M.P. ('Chinnappa Reddy, J.) . 
125 
Madhya Pradesh ~ith his cattle in Plll'S:Uit of his oc.cupatio.n. 
Fores~s of the 
State are not.the grazing grounds reserved for cattle belonging to residents of 
that State only. [128 D-F] 
There was, however, nothing wrong in prescribing the route along which 
the cattle had to pass while in transit because its object was to prevent cattle 
1traying and causing indiscriminate damaa;e to forests. [128 H] 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION:. Writ Petition Nos. 829/79, 1104, 200 
& 2655 of 1980. 
(Undet article 32 of the Constitution of India). 
G. N. Dikshit, S. Markendeya, P. Sinha, M. M. Temai, J. K. 
Nayyar and S. K. Bisaria with him for the Petitioners. 
S. K. Gambhir for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of t~e Cciurt was delivered by 
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. The petitioners are nomad graziers of 
Gujarat and Rajasthan, who wander from place to place with their 
sheep, goats and cattle in search of pasture and foliage. Boundarioo 
of States present no barriers to them. 
After all, to them and to 
their livestock, it is a question of survival. In their wanderings they 
often pass through the State of Madhya Pradesh en route some times 
to Uttar· Pradesh and some times to Maharashtra. This happens 
particularly· in times of drought in Gujarat and Rajastha·n. . The 
powers that be in the State of Madhya Pradesh became apprehensive 
that uninhibited passage of large herds of these animals through 
Madhya Pradesh may lead to large scale devastation of their forest 
wealth. So they hit upon a plan to prevent 'foreign cattle' from 
browsing in Madhya Pradesh forests. 
For the moment, it was for-
gotton that India is one country and no Indian is a foreigner in any 
of the constituent States of India: The plan was this : The Indian 
Forest Act 1927 enabled the State Government to make rules to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.