http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  583 of 2002

PETITIONER: Abdulsattar Yusufbhai Qureshi & Ors

RESPONDENT: State of Gujarat

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/02/2008

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT CIVIL APPEAL No. 593  OF 2002

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J

        1.      Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division  Bench of the Gujarat High Court dismissing the writ petition  filed by the appellants. Appellants are engaged in the business  of slaughter and selling of meat of bulls, bullocks and other  animals.  In the writ petition, they challenged the validity of  Notification dated 11.12.1989 published in Government  Gazette dated 13.12.1989 by the State of Gujarat. The  Notification was purported to have been issued in exercise of  its powers conferred under clause (b) of sub section (1) and  clause (g) of sub-section (2) of Section 4 and clause (a) of sub  section (1) of Section 5 of the Gujarat Essential Commodities  and Cattle (Control) Act, 1958 (in short the ’Act of 1958’) as  applicable to the State of Gujarat.

2.      The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground  that reasonable restriction was imposed for drastically  reducing the trade of slaughter of bulls and bullocks.

3.      Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the  Notification was beyond the powers of the State government  and affected the fundamental rights of the appellants of  carrying on their business of slaughter and selling of meat of  bulls and bullocks and other animals and also affected their  right to life.

4.      Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand  submitted that the matter has been conclusively decided by  several judgments of this Court.   

5.      In State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab  Jamat & Ors. (2005 (8) SCC 534), it was inter-alia observed as  follows: "10. This was followed by the impugned  legislation, the Bombay Animal Preservation  (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1994. The Bombay  Act of 1954 referred to as "the principal Act"

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

was further amended by Section 2 of the  amending Act which reads as under:  "2. In the Bombay Animal Preservation  Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as ’the  principal Act’), in Section 5,\027  (1) in sub-section (1-A), for clauses  (c ) and (d), the following clauses  shall be substituted, namely\027  ’(c) a bull;   ( d ) a bullock.’  (2) in sub-section (3)\027  ( i ) in clause ( a ), sub-clauses  ( ii ) and ( iii ) shall be deleted;  (ii) in clause ( b ), after the  words ’calf of a cow’, the words  ’bull or bullock’ shall be  inserted."                 Xx              xx 142. For the foregoing reasons, we  cannot accept the view taken by the  High Court.  All the appeals are allowed.  The impugned judgment of the High  Court is set aside. The Bombay Animal  Preservation (Gujarat Amendment) Act,  1994 (Gujarat Act 4 of 1994) is held to  be intra vires the Constitution. All the  writ petitions filed in the High Court are  directed to be dismissed."    6.      Similarly in Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh v. State of A.P. &  Ors. (2006(4) SCC 162) it was observed as follows:    "64. Before concluding this issue, let us deal  with Submission ( h ) made by Akhil Bharat  Goseva Sangh in CA No. 3968 of 1994. On  behalf of Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh in  Submission ( h ) it was urged that the decision  in Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar (AIR  1958 SC 731)would not help Al Kabeer in any  way as the position at present is completely  different. In that decision, total ban on  slaughter of old cattle was struck down on the  ground that there was scarcity of fodder  resources, which however, according to Akhil  Bharat Goseva Sangh, does not exist any  longer. In State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti  Kureshi Kassab Jamat (2005(8) SCC 534) it has  also been held that in view of the position that  exists now i.e. adequate availability of cattle  feed resources, the question of striking down  total ban on slaughter of old cattle for scarcity  of fodder resources would not arise at all. In  our view, this position cannot be disputed.  However, in the present case, we are  concerned with the A.P. Act, 1977 which does  not impose a total ban on slaughter of a  particular type of bovine animal, whereas in  Mirzapur case (supra) this Court dealt with the  provisions of the Bombay Animal Preservation  (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1994 which  imposes a total ban on slaughter of cow and its  progeny. So far as the A.P. Act, 1977 is  concerned, there is no total ban on slaughter  of buffaloes. Therefore, in our view, this  submission of the Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

cannot at all be accepted, as we are not  concerned with the case of striking down a  particular provision which imposes an  absolute prohibition of slaughter of particular  types of bovine animals. In Mirzapur case  (supra), it was, however, not held that  permitting slaughter of bovine cattle by itself is  unconstitutional. This being the position, we  are not in agreement with the learned counsel  for the appellant that Submission (h) can come  to their assistance for the purpose of banning  of slaughter of buffaloes by Al Kabeer."

7.      Above being the position, this appeal is without merit,  deserves dismissal which we direct.