STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus MUMBAI UPNAGAR GRAMODYOG SANGH

Citation: [1969] 2 S.C.R. 392 · Decided: 15-10-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
v. 
MUMBAI UPNAGAR GRAMODYOG SANGH 
October 15, 1968 
(J. C. SHAH, G. K. MITTER, K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 
Bombay Municipal Corporation Act (3 of 1888), ai amended by 
Act 14 of 1961, ss. 372(g) and 385-0wner of dead animal to deposit 
carcass in specified place without selling-Corporation having riRht to 
dispose of carcass-If fundamental rights of owners and skinners affected. 
Constitution of India, 1950, Arts. 19(\)(f) and 31(1), (2) 
and 
(5)-Taking_ and destroying carcasses-If owner .entitled to compensation. 
To ensure against the grave nuisance which may be caused to the 
residents of a locality if carcasses of dead animals are allowed to remain 
. on the premises within the city, ·a duty is imposed by ss. 367, 372 and 
385 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, as amended by 
Act 14 of 1961, upon the owner of the animal or the person having 
charge of the animal or tlie occupier of premises in which the, animal 
.. dies, to remove the carcass at his own expense with the permission of the 
Commissioner of the City of Bombay, or, to have. it removed through 
the agency of the Corporation, for which he was required to pay a fee 
. of Rs. 20. It was further enacted that. after it was removed it shall be 
deposited· in a receptacle, depot or other place set apart for the purpose, 
.. either by the owner or the Corporation. Thereupon, the owner lost his 
property in the carcass and it became the property of the Corporation. 
Under the. Act it was the duty of the Corporation to arrange for its 
disposal causing the least practicable nuisance. 
The second respondent was the owner of a stable of milch cattle in 
·Born hay. 
He was se11ing the carcasses of animals dying in his stable_ 
for a price1. 
The first respondent was a purchaser of carcasses and 
· carried on the business of skinning the dead animals and utilising the 
products for industrial uses. 
The Corporation prohibited the first res-
pondent from removing carcasses and resolved to grant the contract for 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
the disposal of carcasses deposited under the provisions of the Act to 
F 
Harijan Workmen's Cooperative Labour Society. 
The respondents challenged the provisions and the High Court dec-
· 1ared them ultra vires. 
In appeal to this Court, on the questions : (1) Whether the obliga-
-tion not to sell the carcass but to dispose it of as per the provisions of 
the Act infringe the fundamental rights of the respondents under Art. 
19(1) (f); (2) Whether them was infringement of the fundamental right 
hecause of the obligation on the second respondent to incur expenditure 
for its removal; (3) Whether fee of Rs. 20 was excessive; (4) Whether 
the second respondent's loss of ownership a·nd property in the carcass 
-on depositing it as per the provisions of the Act violated the, respondents
9 
fundamental right under Art. 31; and (5) Whether the granting of tlie 
contract to the Hariian Society destroyed the business of the first res-
pondent and infringedi its fundamental right to carry on _business. 
HELD : (1) The second respondent had a right of ownership in the 
carcasses of his animals. 
But he was only entitled to constitutional pro-
. tection. against unreasonable restriction on his right to sell the carcasses. 
G 
H 
r• 
, 
• 
• 
.. 
.. 
• 
• 
• 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
ff 
MAHARASHTRA V, MUMBAI SANGH 
393 
Reasonableness of restrictions imposed by a Jaw has to be adjudged in 
the light of the nature of the right, danger or injury which may be in-
herent in the unbridled exercise of the right and the necessity of pro-
tection against danger which may result to the public by the exercise 
of the right. In each case the test is whether the restriction is commen· 
snrate with the need for protection of public interest against the exer-
cise of the right. [400 C; 402 A-BJ 
A mere imposition of an injunction to remove a carcass only 
abates the nuisance arising from a dead animal remaining on the pre-
mises : it does not eliminate the graver hazard caused by the adultera-
tion of food of the people from its products. Meat and fat from car-
casses are used by unscrupulous persons for adulterating the food of the 
community. Even by imposing 
stringent ~upervision upon 
persons 
carrying on the business of skinning carcasses, prorection of the com-
munity against food adulteration cannot be effectively secnred, because, a 
purchaser who was not subject to the Corporation control could remove 
it beyond the 

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