Allahabad, Apr 19 (PTI) The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a PIL challenging the prohibition on the sale of meat and other non-vegetarian items in 22 municipal wards of Mathura-Vrindawan by the state government.
The State Government under Notification dated September 10, 2021, has notified 22 Wards of Mathura-Vrindawan Nagar Nigam as ‘Holy Place of Pilgrimage’. Subsequently, on September 11, the district food security officer (DFSO), Mathura, passed an order suspending the registration license of the meat shops and restaurants in the aforesaid areas.
The court observed, “India is a country of great diversity. It is absolutely essential if we wish to keep our country united to have tolerance and respect for all communities and sects. It was due to the wisdom of our founding fathers that we have a Constitution which is secular in character and which caters to all communities, sects lingual and ethnic groups etc., in the country. ” A bench comprising Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava said, “We do not find any clear violation of any Constitutional provision by the said Notification. It is the prerogative of the Government to declare any place as ‘Holy Place of Pilgrimage’. Mere declaration of any particular place as ‘Holy Place of Pilgrimage’ does not mean that any restriction has been imposed and the said act is illegal.” It was argued before the court that petitioner is a permanent resident of District Mathura and is a social worker elected as a councillor. The Mathura city has a total of 70 wards managed by the local body.
The HC further said that there is no complete ban in Mathura as the restriction is imposed in only 22 wards.
“The Government Order dated 17.9.2021 issued by the State Government on the other hand imposes a restriction upon the sale / purchase of meat, liquor and eggs in the 22 Wards of the Nagar Nigam Mathura-Vrindawan. This restriction has been imposed only with respect to 22 Wards and is not applicable to other Wards of the city. Thus, there is no complete ban,” the bench said The allegation of the petitioner that State Authorities are harassing such consumers of the restricted material (meat, liquor and eggs) in transportation of the same is merely a bald and sweeping statement. “No material has been brought on record to substantiate this allegation,” it said.
It was submitted on behalf of the state government, “that no fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 19 (1)(g) and Article 19 (6) of the Constitution of India can be said to have been infringed by imposing reasonable restrictions on 22 Wards only. Similar reasonable restrictions in respect of Rishikesh Municipality has been upheld in the case of Darshan Kumar and others versus The State of UP and another (AIR 1997 Alld 209) which decision has been affirmed by the Apex Court in the case of Om Prakash and others versus State of UP and others reported in 2004 (3) SCC 402.
It is accordingly submitted that the relief claimed in the Writ (PIL) is not tenable and the Writ (PIL) is liable to be dismissed, the government lawyer said. PTI COR RAJ RCJ
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.