MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, AMRITSAR & ANR. versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

Citation: [1969] 3 S.C.R. 447 · Decided: 30-01-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH
Cited by 11 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, AMRITSAR & ANR. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. 
January 30, 1969 
[J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 
Punjab Cattle Fairs (Regulation) Act (6 of 1968) as amended by 
Amending Act 18 of 1968, ss. 2(bb), 4, 15 and 23-0riginal Act without 
definition in s. 2(bb) of cattle fair, if vague-Whether Act can be struck 
down on.rhe ground of vagueness and eOect of striking down-If Act ceases 
to have existence in law-Decision before amendment if res judicata be-
[l1:een parties aft,er amendment-Act creating monopoly in State if violates 
Art. !9(l)(b), (d), (/) and (g) of the Constitution-Scope of s. 4--S. 
15 if violative of Art. 19(1)(/)-Municipal Committee if citizen-If can 
con1plain of violation of Art. 19-Direction regarding property of Munici-
pal Com1nittee aniounting to requisition-JJ violative of Art. 32-Direc-
tions regarding atnenities-lf authorised by Act. 
Jn the State of Punjab .local authorities and individual owners c:lf land 
were holding cattle fairs. 
The Punjab Cattle Fairs 
(Regulation) 
Act, 
1967, was passed by the State Legislature in exercise of pawers under entry 
28 of List II of VII Schedule to the Constitution, declaring a monapoly 
in the State ta hold cattle fairs and prohibiting all local authorities and 
individuals from holding cattle fairs at 'any place in the State'. 
There 
was no definition of the expression 'cattle 'fair' in the Act. 
The validity 
of the Act was challenged on the ground that 
the provisions of the Act 
were 'vague and ambiguous\ 
and the 
High 
Court, in Mohinder Singh 
Sawhney v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1968 Punj. 391, accepted the conten· 
tion. The State Legislature thereupon, by Amendment Act 18 of 1968 
introduced s. 2(bb) defining the expression 'cattle fair' to mean 'a gather-
ing of more than 25 persons for the purpose of general sale or purchase 
of cattle'. 
Fair Officers were appointed under s. 4(1) of the Act, and 
under s. 4(2) they declared certain areas as fair areas. Some of the areas 
so declared belonged to a Municipal Committee in the State. The Munici-
pal Committee, a lessee from the Municipal Committee and some residents 
in the State, challenged the Act in this Court on the following grounds :-
(I) Since the Act was struck down in Mohinder Singh Sawlmey's case, 
the Act ceased to have any existence in law and could not therefore be 
amended; 
(2) The order of the High Court in that case operated as res judicata 
bet\\1een the parties and could not be enforced without a re-enactment of 
the Act: 
(3) The Act violated Arts. !9(l)(b), (d), (f) and (g); and 
(4) Section 15 c:lf the Act, which authorises the State to call upon a 
Panchayat Samiti or a Municipal Committee within 
whose 
jurisdiction 
the fair is held to deposit a prescribed amount in the Cattle Fair Fund to 
cover the initial expenses of the fair and compels the local authority to 
abide by the directions, was invalid. 
H 
The Municipal Committee also challenged the demand by the Fair 
Officer, asking the Municipal Committee to supply water, electricity and 
to make sanitary arrangements and to make the staff articles and offices 
of the Municipal Committee available to the Fair Officer. 
448 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1969] 3 S.C.R. 
HELD : ( i) The Act as originally enacted was not vague. 
When the 
A 
Legislature did not furnish a definition of 'cattle fair' it must be deemed 
to have used the expression in its ordinary signification, 
as meaning 
a 
periodical concourse of buyers and sellers in a place, generally for sale 
and purchase of cattle, at times or on occasions ordained by custom. 
(454 C-EJ 
But even if it was vague it could not have been struck down on that 
ground. The High Court in Mohinder Singh Sawhney's case struck down 
B 
the Act on the ground of vagueness on the assumption that. the validity of 
the Act was liable to be adjudged by the test of 'due process of law'. But 
this Court, in A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, [1950] S.C.R. 88, held 
that the doctrine of due process has no place in our Constitution. Superior 
Courts in India may declare a law 
invalid, if the 
Legislature 
has 
no 
power to enact the law or if the law violates any 
elf the fundamental 
rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution or is inconsistent with 
any constitutional ptovision, but not on the ground that it is vague. There.. 
C 
fore, as a result of the judgment of the High Court the Act did not cease 
to have existence in law.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.