The Allahabad High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice Ashutosh Srivastava and Justice Pritinker Diwaker dismissed a Public Interest Litigation plea filed regarding permission for transportation of meat, liquor, and eggs to the 22 wards of Mathura which have been declared as "Holy Place of Pilgrimage" from other wards for personal consumption, marriages and other ceremonies.(Shahida v State Of U.P. And 3 Others)
The bench found that the petitioner's allegations that State authorities were harassing meat, liquor and egg consumers in these wards of Mathura Vridawan were merely bald and sweeping statements.
The Court observed that this restriction has been imposed only with respect to 22 Wards and is not applicable to other Wards of the city.
The court observed, "Thus, there is no complete ban...No material has been brought on record to substantiate this allegation."
Facts of the case
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India styled as Public Interest Litigation was instituted for consideration of the representation dated 17.1.2022 addressed to the District Magistrate, Mathura (respondent No. 2 herein) to grant leave to the persons / non vegetarians of such 22 Wards of Mathura Vrindawan Nagar Nigam, Mathura notified as "Holy Place of Pilgrimage" under Notification dated 10.9.2021 issued by the Addl. Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. and consequently, notification imposing complete ban on running meat, fish, egg shops etc., and suspending the licence of shops, non veg hotels etc., with immediate effect and for permitting easy transportation of such restricted materials from outside for marriage and other ceremonial functions.
It was also prayed that the local police may not harass such persons in transporting the restricted materials from outside into such 22 notified Wards.
Since Shahida’s representation was not considered by the District Magistrate, Mathura, she had moved to the High Court of Allahabad for redressal of her grievance
Contention of the Parties
It was contended by the Petitioner that on account of the restriction, non-vegetarian persons residing in the said Wards are being deprived of their choice of meals and also from carrying on their business and livelihood.
It was also contended that the authorities are also not permitting the transportation of the restricted materials from other Wards where there is no such restriction for personal consumption or consumption in marriages and other ceremonial functions which restriction is most arbitrary and cannot be permitted.
Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal submitted that the state's decision was with a view to maintain the historical, religious, tourism importance and above all the sanctity of the Holy places and added that the restriction was limited to the 22 Wards.
The State argued that no fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 19 (1)(g) or Article 19 (6) of the Constitution can be said to have been infringed by imposing reasonable restrictions on only 22 Wards.
Courts Observation and Judgment
The Court didn't dwell into the validity of the order as the petitioner is not aggrieved of the same and went on to deal with the grievance cited which was with regard to the harassment being faced by the non vegetarian residents of the 22 Wards in transportation of such restricted materials from outside such restricted Wards into the restricted wards for private consumption, for marriage and other ceremonial purposes.
Thus, Court held, "In the absence of any challenge to the above Notification and the Government Order, it can safely be presumed that the petitioner is not aggrieved by the same. This Court, therefore, does not deem it appropriate to dwell into the validity of the aforesaid Notification and the Government Order."
The Court commented that it is the prerogative of the Government to declare any place as "Holy Place of Pilgrimage" and mere such declaration doesn't mean that any restriction has been imposed and the said act is illegal.
It opined that it is the privilege of the State to do so.
"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. It is the Constitution of India which is keeping us together despite all our tremendous diversity, because the Constitution gives equal respect to all communities, sects, lingual and ethnic groups etc., in the Country."
The Court cited absence of challenge from the petitioner for its inaction as though violation of fundamental rights have made it to submissions, relief for the same has not been sought.
Therefore, Court did not deem it appropriate to comment upon the validity of the State Government Notification and the Government Order and dismissed the PIL.
Read Order @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
