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

PETITIONER: GULSHAN & ANR. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: ZILA PARISHAD & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT16/10/1987

BENCH: SEN, A.P. (J) BENCH: SEN, A.P. (J) VENKATACHALLIAH, M.N. (J)

CITATION:  1988 SCR  (1) 538        1987 SCC  Supl.  619  JT 1987 (4)   334        1987 SCALE  (2)1466

ACT:      Uttar  Pradesh   Kshetra  Samiti   and  Zila  Parishads Adhiniyam, 1961: Section 239(2)(E)(a)-Utilisation of carcass of dead  animals in  rural area-Bye-law framed providing for public auction  right to trade in-Zila Parishads, Competency of-Whether Bye-law  offends Art. 19(1)(g) of Constitution of India-State Government  Circular dated  June 7, 1986 -Effect of.

HEADNOTE: %      In  exercise   of  the   powers  conferred  by  Section 239(2)(E)(a) of  the Uttar  Pradesh Kshetra  Samiti and Zila Parishads Adhiniyam,  1961, various  Zila Parishads framed a bye-law,  providing   that  right   to  trade   in   carcass utilisation  in  the  rural  area  of  the  respective  Zila Parishads shall  be put  to public  auction. Such activities comprised of  taking of  the carcass  of dead  animals to  a specified place,  skinning of  the carcass, storage of bones and skins,  curing and  dyeing of such skins and preparation of leather goods.      In a writ petition challenging the validity of the said bye-law, a  Single Judge  of the  High Court struck down the latter part  of the  bye-law  framed  by  one  of  the  Zila Parishads, providing  for farming  out of  the privilege  of utilisation and  disposal of carcass of dead animals, on the ground that it created a monopoly in favour of an individual or group of individuals.            A Division Bench reiterated that view in two writ petitions filed before it, and distinguished the decision of this  Court  in  State  of  Maharashtra  v.  Mumbai  Upnagar Gramodyog Sangh,  [1969] 2 SCR 392 taking a contrary view on the ground that the restrictions were reason able within the meaning of  Art.  19(6),  in  the  context  of  the  thickly populated metropolitan city.      The correctness  of the  said decision  of the Division Bench was  open to question. Another Division Bench referred the matter  to a  Full Bench,  which expressly  repelled the aforesaid view,  and held that it was competent for the Zila Parishads to  frame such  bye-laws in exercise of the powers conferred by s. 239(2)(E)(a) of the Act. 539

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

    Against the  various judgments  and orders  of the High Court, special  leave petitions and appeals by special leave challenging the  constitutional validity  of  the  aforesaid bye-law, were filed in this Court.      In SLP(C)  No. 1900  of 1981,  this Court,  in order to protect the  interests of  persons traditionally  engaged in the work  of skinning,  tanning  etc.,  directed  the  State Government to  frame a  Model Scheme for carcass utilisation in the  Etawa district  at the village panchayat level on an experimental basis, and passed certain incidental directions as to  the price  payable for  skins, bones  and  horns.  As nothing further  was done,  in partial  modification of  its earlier orders, this Court directed the Zila Parishad, Etawa to issue licence to any person who applied for the same.      In the meantime, the Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a Circular  dated June  7, 1986  stating that  in future the licences for  disposal  of  carcass  of  animals  should  be granted only  to registered industrial cooperative societies formed by the persons engaged in this work.      Disposing of  the Special  Leave  Petitions  and  civil appeals, ^      HELD: It  is plain  upon the  reading of  the  Circular dated June  7, 1986  issued by the State Government that the contract system  envisaged by the impugned bye-law framed by the different Zila Parishads in the State has been virtually abandoned, and  the State Government proposes to replace the system  of   auction  by   a  system  of  licensing,  giving preferential right  to cooperative  societies consisting  of members of  the traditional  occupation, for the disposal of carcass of dead animals. [544E-F]      In view  of the subsequent policy decision taken by the State  Government,   the  present   controversy  no   longer survives. It  would be  open to different Zila Parishads, in view of  the directive of the State Government, to frame the appropriate   Bye-laws   consistent   with   and   for   the implementations  of   the  policy   declared  by  the  State Government.  The   Zila  Parishads,  while  considering  the question, shall  keep in  view the directions issued by this Court  on   April  15,  1983,  and  also  the  order  passed introducing the  licence-system in  the Zila Parishad, Etawa on an experimental basis.[544F-G]      For a meaningful effectuation of the policy-decision of the Government,  which is taken in the larger interests of a sizeable segment  of the  weaker sections of the society, it is of utmost importance that the 540 work of  formation of  cooperative society of the members of the traditional  occupation,  who  lack  the  will  and  the ability to  organise themselves,  should be  taken up by the social welfare  department of the State Government and every effort  should   be  made   to  bring  the  members  of  the traditional occupation  within the fold of these cooperative societies.  The   social  welfare   department  shall   take effective steps  to  organise  such  cooperative  societies. [544H; 545A-B]      Wherever it  is not  possible to  implement the policy- decision and  there is  likely to  be a  loss of  revenue or other compelling  reason, it  would  be  open  to  the  Zila Parishads, as a purely transitory measure and with the prior concurrence of  the State Government, to arrange for carcass utilisation by  auction if the Bye-laws permit such auction. It is only where, for any compelling reason, the said policy decision cannot be implemented effectively in any area, that the concerned  Zila Parishad  could, with the prior sanction

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

of the  State  Government,  continue  the  present  contract system subject  to such  variation as  may be necessary till the cooperative societies are formed. [545C D1]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Special  Leave  Petition No. 1900 of 1981 etc.      From the  Judgment and  order  dated  3.2.1981  of  the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P. No. 1924 of 1981.      P.P.  Rao,   Ambrish  Kumar,   Mrs.  Rani  Chhabra,  M. Qamaruddin, Mrs. Qamaruddin, A.K. Srivastava, B.B. Tawakley, Mrs. Subhadra, S.N. Singh, C.K. Ratnaparkhi, S.K. Gupta, Uma Dutt,  C.P.  Lal,  M.K.  Garg,  and  Lokesh  Kumar  for  the Petitioners.      Anil Dev  Singh, O.P..  Rana, B.P.  Maheshwari, Mrs. S. Dikshit, P.K. Pillai, R. Ramachandran, A.K. Srivastava, S.C. Birla, S.  Wasim, A.  Qadri, N.N.  Sharma, Shakeel Ahmad and K.K. Gupta  for the  Respondents. The  following orer of the Court was delivered: