MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF AHMEDABAD & ORS. versus JAN MOHAMMED USMANBHAI & ANR.

Citation: [1986] 2 S.C.R. 700 · Decided: 17-04-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
700 
lllNICIPAL rotU'OKATION OF THE 
CITY OF AillEDABAD & ORS. 
v. 
JAN KJIWllED USMANBHAI & ANR. 
APRIL 17, 1986 
[O, CHINNAPPA REDDY, E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, V. BALAKRISHNA 
ERADI, R.B. MISRA AND V. KHALID, JJ,] 
Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 - S. 
466(1) (D) (b) -
Standing Orders issued directing closure of 
slaughter house on seven specified days in a year - Whether 
violates fundamental right to carry on trade. 
Section 466 (l)(D)(b) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal 
Corporation Act, 1949 confers on the Municipal Colllllissioner 
power to make standing orders, rules and bye-laws. One of such 
powers extends to fixation of days and hours during which any 
market, slaughter house or stock;rard may be kept open 
for 
use. The appellant-COrporation framed such bye-laws on 18th 
July 1957 and the same had been sanctioned by the Government. 
A standing order was made by the Municipal Colllllissioner in the 
year 1956 fixing four days as holidays in a year on which the..J 
nunicipal slaughter house shall remain closed. By an amendment ' 
to the said standing order effected on 17th September, 1965 
three more holidays were added. 
The respondent, a beef dealer, filed a writ petition 
challenging the validity of the said two standing orders{ 
directing the closure of slaughter houses on seven days as , 
being violative of Arts. 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution!' 
alleging that the closure of the slaughter house adversely 
effected his trade; that the power to keep the nunicipal 
slaughter house closed on any particular day in an area is 
vested in the Municipal Commissioner and such a power could 
only be exercised by a standing order properly issued and 
pronulgated by him; that under the earlier standing order of 
1956 slaughter houses could be kept open for use on all days 
except on the four days viz. Janmashtami, Jain Samvatsari, 2nd+ 
Oct. (Mahatama Gandhi's Birthday) and 12th February (Sharddha 
day of Mahatama Gandhi); that the resolution passed by the 
MUNICIPAL CORPN. v. JAN MOHD. 
701 
A 
~Corporation on 18th January, 1965, adding three more days as 
the closure days of the slaughter houses viz. 30th January 
(Mahatama Gandhi's Nirwan Day), Mahabir Jayanti and 
Ram 
Navami, was therefore, null and void; that the said standing 
orders put an unreasonable restriction on the petitioner's 
right to carry on his trade or business as a beef dealer and 
B 
that restriction was not in the interest of the general public 
bUt was based on extraneous considerations; that the standing 
Ji>rders single out the petitioner and other butchers like him, 
who slaughter only cattle and not sheep or goat, for hostile 
discrimination inas1111ch as the standing orders effect only the 
butchers who slaughter cattle and not those who deal in meat 
of goat and sheep. 
c 
Allowing the petition, the High Court held that the 
impugned standing orders were ultra vires being violative of 
Art. 19(l)(g) of the ConstitutiOO.---
The 
appellant-Corporation 
appealed 
to this 
Court, 
D 
contending that the restriction imposed by the two standing 
orders was a reasonable one and in the interests of the 
general public. 
,,.._ 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD : 1. The closure of slaughter house on seven days 
specified in the two standing orders did not in any way put an 
unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right guaranteed 
. to the respondent under Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. 
1"(717 CJ 
:.., 
Banif ~ 
& Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., (1959) 
$.C.R. 629, Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & 
0rs., (1981) 1 s.c.a. 206, 257, Abcll11 lla1d.a Quraishi & Ors. 
v. State of Bihar & Ors., (1961) 2 S.C.R. 610 and Mohd. Farult 
v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., (1970) 1 S.C.R. 156, 
referred to. 
2. The Court 1111st in considering the validity of the 
~impugned law imposing prohibition on the carrying on a 
business or a profession attempt an evaluation of its direct 
and immediate impact upon the fundamental rights of the 
citizens affected thereby and the larger public interest 
sought to be ensured in the light of the object sought to be 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
702 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1986] 2 s.c.R. 
llchieved, the necessity to restrict the citizens' freedom, the 
inherent. pernicious nature of the act prohibited or it~ 
capacity or tendency to be harmful to the general public, the 
possibility of achieving the object by imposing a less drastic 
restcaints, and ln the absence of exceptiona

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