http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: LAKSHMAN AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

DATE OF JUDGMENT06/05/1983

BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) DESAI, D.A.

CITATION:  1983 SCR  (3) 124        1983 SCC  (3) 275  1983 SCALE  (1)577

ACT:      Constitution of  India, 1950-Article  19 (1)  (e), (f ) and  (g)-State   Government-If  could  discriminate  between owners of  cattle belonging  to  its  own  State  and  other States-If could  levy higher  grazing charges  on owners  of ’foreign cattle’  -If could restrict the route and period of transit of ’foreign cattle through the State

HEADNOTE:      With the  purported object  of inhibiting the influx of cattle belonging  to owners  of neighbouring  States passing through the  State of  Madhya Pradesh,  the State Government issued a notification under rule 7 of the M.P. Grazing Rates Rules, 1979  prescribing the  route to  be followed  by such cattle (described as ’foreign cattle’) while in transit. The notification also  stipulated that  ’foreign  cattle  should leave the  State within  a period of 45 days after the issue of the licence, that the owner should pay grazing charges of Rs. 10  per buffalo  and Rs.  5 per  goat or  sheep for  the period of  transit. A  notification  issued  under  rule  6, however, prescribed  grazing charge  of Re.  1 per  year for each goat  or sheep  belonging to  residents of the State of Madhya Pradesh.  No charge  was  prescribed  in  respect  of buffaloes.      The  petitioners,   nomad  graziers   of  Gujarat   and Rajasthan who  pass through the State of Madhya Pradesh with their cattle  en routes  to other  neighbouring  States,  in their  petitions   under  Article  32  of  the  Constitution contended  that   tile  notification  issued  under  rule  7 contravened their  fundamental rights  under Articles 14, 19 (1) (e),  ( f  ) and  (g) and also their right under Article 301 of the Constitution and that therefore it was invalid.      Allowing the petitions, ^      HELD: There  was no  rational basis for the distinction made between  owners of  cattle belonging  to Madhya Pradesh and owners  of cattle belonging to other States and the levy of prohibited  grazing rates  on owners of ’foreign cattle’. There  was  equally  no  justification  in  prescribing  the ceiling of 45 days during which the cattle must pass through the State.  While in  the case  of cattle  belonging to  the residents of  the State  of Madhya  Pradesh the levy was for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

one year there was no reason why the charge should be for 45 days in  the case  of cattle  belonging to graziers of other States. [127 G-H, 128 A-B]      Under our  Constitution a citizen has the right to move freely  throughout   the  territory   of  India  subject  to reasonable restrictions.  To whichever  State a  grazier may belong, he  has the  right to  pass and  repass through  the State of 125 Madhya Pradesh with his cattle in pursuit of his occupation. Forests of  the State  are not  the grazing grounds reserved for cattle belonging to residents of A that State only. [128 D-F]      There was,  however, nothing  wrong in  prescribing the route along  which the  cattle had  to pass while in transit because its  object  was  to  prevent  cattle  straying  and causing indiscriminate damage to forests. [128 H]

JUDGMENT:      ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition Nos. 829/79, 1104, 200 2655 of 1980.      (Under article 32 of the Constitution of India).      G. N. Dikshit, S. Markendeya, P. Sinha, M. M. Temai, J. K Nayyar and S. K Bisaria with him for the Petitioners.      S. R Gambhir for the Respondent.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      CHINNAPPA REDDY,  J. The petitioners are nomad graziers of Gujarat  and Rajasthan,  who wander  from place  to place with their  sheep, goats and cattle in search of pasture and foliage. Boundaries  of States  present no barriers to them. After all,  to them and to their livestock, it is a question of survival. In their wanderings they often pass through the State of Madhya Pradesh en route some times to Uttar Pradesh and some  times to Maharashtra. This happens particularly in times of drought in Gujarat and Rajasthan The powers that be in the  State of  Madhya Pradesh  became  apprehensive  that uninhibited passage  of large herds of these animals through Madhya Pradesh  may lead to large scale devastation of their forest wealth.  So they  hit upon  a plan to prevent foreign cattle’ from  browsing in  Madhya Pradesh  forests. For  the moment, it  was forgotten  that India  is one country and no Indian is  a foreigner  in any  of the constituent States of India. The plan was this: The Indian Forest Act 1927 enabled the State  Government to  make rules to regulate the cutting of grass  and pasturing of cattle in protected forests (Sec. 32(i) and, generally, to carry out the provisions of the Act (Sec. 76).  We may  note here ’cattle’ as defined by s. 2(i) includes buffaloes,  sheep, goats  and many  other specie of browsing animals.  We may also note that we are concerned in this case  with protected  forests  only  and  not  reserved forests. Rules  had been  made earlier by the Madhya Pradesh Government in 1974 called the Madhya 126 Pradesh Grazing  Rates Rules,  1974 by  which provision  was made A  for  grazing  licences,  transit  grazing  licences, grazing rates  and other subjects. Rule 4 prohibited grazing in closed  coupes, plantation  area and  such other areas as were declared as closed for grazing by the Divisional Forest officer. Rule  3 provided  for the  issuance of licences for grazing in particular grazing units, each forest range being treated as  a grazing  unit till  the constitution  of  such grazing units.  Rule S  provided for the issuance of transit licences for transit of cattle through Government forests in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

the State  of Madhya  Pradesh, so that cattle in transit may not graze continuously for more than a month in a particular grazing unit.  Rule 6  prescribed grazing  rates, commercial and transit.  For buffaloes  it was  Rs. 6 per head per year while for  goats and  sheep, it  was Re. 1 per head per year whether it  was for  commercial or  transit purposes. Rule 7 prescribed grazing  rates for  ’foreign cattle  of adjoining States’. Whether  the cattle  grazed in the forest or passed through the forest, Grazing was permitted at the rate of Rs. 10 per  head per year in the case of buffaloes and Rs. 2 per head per  year in  the case of goats and sheep. In 1979, the rules made  in 1974  were superseded  and fresh  rules  were made. They  are the  rules now  in  force.  Rule  2(5)  bans grazing in  reserved forests.  Rule 3 provides for the issue of grazing  licences in  grazing units so constituted. Until grazing units  are constituted,  each forest  range is to be treated as  a separate  grazing unit. Rule 3(2) provides for the levy  of grazing  charges at  rates to  be notified from time to  time. Rule  4 prohibits  grazing in  closed coupes, plantation areas  and other  areas  which  are  declared  as closed for  grazing by the Divisional Forest officer. Rule 5 provides for transit grazing licences, on payment of grazing charges,  for  the  transit  of  cattle  through  Government forests where  the owners  of the  cattle are  residents  of Madhya Pradesh.  Cattle in transit, however, are not allowed to graze continuously in the same grazing unit for more than 30 days.  Rule 6  enables the Government to notify from time to time  the rates  of grazing  charges and  transit grazing charges payable  by residents  of  Madhya  Pradesh.  Rule  7 provides for  the levy  of grazing rates for ’foreign cattle of adjoining  States’. The rule enables the State Government to prohibit,  restrict, or  in  their  discretion  to  grant owners of  cattle  residing  outside  the  State  of  Madhya Pradesh grazing  or transit  grazing  facilities  for  their cattle on  payment of  charges to  be notified  from time to time. Rule  7(2) further  empowers the Government to specify the specific  grazing areas,  the - points of entry and exit of the route to be followed by the cattle, 127 the period during which grazing or transit grazing should be completed, etc.  On June  28, 1979,  two notifications  one, under rule  6 and  the  other,  under  rule  7  were  issued notifying the  rates of charges for the issue of grazing and transit grazing  licences. In respect of cattle belonging to residents of  Madhya Pradesh,  the grazing rate is Re. 1 per year for each animal in the case of goats and sheep. Nothing is to  be charged in the case of buffaloes. The notification issued under  rule 7 prescribes the routes to be followed by the cattle of Rajasthan and Gujarat while in transit through the State  of Madhya  Pradesh. It  also stipulates  that the owners of  cattle must  take the cattle through the State of Madhya Pradesh within a period of 45 days after the issue of licences. The prescribed grazing rates are Rs. 10 per animal in the case of buffaloes and Rs. 5 per animal in the case of sheep and goats.      Apparently the  Government of  Madhya Pradesh  wants to inhibit the  influx of  cattle of other States (described in the rules  as ’foreign  cattle’) by  the method  of charging higher grazing  rates in  their case  than in  the  case  of cattle belonging  to the  residents of  Madhya Pradesh, This levy of  higher rates,  the prescription  of the route to be followed by  foreign cattle  while in transit through Madhya Pradesh and  the stipulation  that  the  cattle  must  leave Madhya Pradesh  in 45  days are  questioned  in  these  writ petitions. It is contended that the petitioner’s Fundamental

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

Rights under  Art. 14  and Art.  19 (e) (f ) and (g) and the right under  Art. 301 are contravened. On the other hand, it is contended  on behalf  of State of Madhya Pradesh that the rules prescribing  grazing rates  for ’foreign  cattle;  the route to  be followed  by ’foreign  cattle’ while in transit through Madhya  Pradesh and  the period  for which  ’foreign cattle’ may  remain within  the boundaries  of the  State of Madhya Pradesh  are made  to regulate the influx and passage of ’foreign  cattle’ into  and through Madhya Pradesh with a view to prevent devastation and to protect the forest wealth of State.      We are  unable  to  see  any  rational  basis  for  the distinction made  between  owners  of  cattle  belonging  to Madhya Pradesh  and owners  of  cattle  belonging  to  other States (described  as owners  of ’foreign  cattle’) and  the levy of  prohibited grazing rates on owners of the so-called ’foreign cattle’.  Forests of Madhya Pradesh are not grazing grounds reserved for cattle belonging to residents of Madhya Pradesh only  even as  the  towns  and  villages  of  Madhya Pradesh cannot be reserved for the residents of the original residents 128 of Madhya  Pradesh only.  Accidents of  birth and  geography cannot A furnish the credentials for such discrimination and authorise prejudicial  treatment in  matters of this nature. We do  not say  that geographical  classification  is  never permissible. For  example, a  preference given by a State to its residents  ill the  matter of  admission to  educational institutions maintained  by the  State from its revenues may be well  justified. But  we  are  unable  to  see  any  such justification  for  the  levy  of  virtually  penal  grazing charges in  the case  of owners of cattle belonging to other States. The only attempt at justification is that the influx of ’foreign  cattle’ is  resulting in the destruction of the forest wealth  of the  State. It  is difficult to understand this justification.  If cattle  belonging  to  residents  of Madhya Pradesh are allowed to graze, will it not lead to the same damage  as by  the cattle belonging to persons of other States ? Surely, it cannot be that the Madhya Pradesh cattle are less destructive than the cattle belonging to persons of other States.  Further if  the object  was  to  prevent  all cattle from grazing in protected forests, such grazing could have been banned as in the case of reserved forests. Even in the case  of the  so-called foreign cattle, cattle belonging to owners  who are  rich, may yet have their cattle graze in the Madhya  Pradesh forests  but  not  cattle  belonging  to poorer graziers. Further, subject to reasonable restrictions which may be imposed in the interests of the general public, a citizen  has the  right under  our  Constitution  to  move freely throughout  the territory  of India,  to  reside  and settle in any part of the territory of India and to practise any profession,  or to  carry on  any  occupation  trade  or business. Graziers,  be they  of Madhya  Pradesh, Gujarat or Rajashthan, therefore,  have the  right to  pass and  repass through the State of Madhya Pradesh with their cattle in the pursuit of  their  occupation.  The  right  is,  of  course, subject to  reasonable restrictions  in the interests of the general public.  We are  enable to  discover any  reasonable basis for  classifying  graziers  into  those  belonging  to Madhya Pradesh  and those belonging to other States; nor are we  able  to  discover  any  acceptable  reason  behind  the restriction imposed  on graziers  of  other  States  by  the heavier charge  made on them. We are convinced that their is no justification  whatsoever  for  charging  higher  grazing rates for  cattle belonging  to persons  of other States. In

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

regard to  the prescription  of the  route along  which  the cattle have  to be  taken while  in transit, however we find nothing wrong  with it,  since the  object is  obviously  to prevent cattle straying and causing indiscriminate damage to forests. We  are, however,  unable to justify the ceiling of 45 days  in which  cattle must  pass through  the  State  of Madhya Pradesh. In the case of 129 cattle belonging to residents of Madhya Pradesh, the grazing rate is  levied for a period of one year. There is no reason why the charge A should be levied for 45 days in the case of persons belonging  to other  States. The  apprehension  that cattle, if  allowed to  graze in  the same  place for a long time, may  destroy the  pasture and  foliage  altogether  is taken care  of by  the other  rules which prescribe that the cattle may  not graze in the same grazing unit for more than a month.  In the  circumstances, we quash the levy of higher grazing rates  in the case of cattle belonging to persons of States other  than Madhya Pradesh and direct the respondents to levy  the same  rates as  they do  in the  case of cattle belonging to  residents of Madhya Pradesh. The limit of stay of 45  days is  also  declared  unconstitutional.  The  writ petitions are  allowed accordingly. The petitioners will get their costs. P.B.R.                                     Petitions allowed 130