http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 13  

PETITIONER: MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, AMRITSAR & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30/01/1969

BENCH: SHAH, J.C. BENCH: SHAH, J.C. RAMASWAMI, V. GROVER, A.N.

CITATION:  1969 AIR 1100            1969 SCR  (3) 447  1969 SCC  (1) 475  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1970 SC 564  (70,179)  R          1970 SC2182  (12)  E          1971 SC 481  (46)  RF         1973 SC 588  (27)  RF         1973 SC 974  (12)  RF         1973 SC1461  (435,1709)  E          1991 SC 101  (70,278)

ACT: Punjab Cattle Fairs (Regulation) Act (6 of 1968) as  amended by Amending Act 18 of 1968, ss. 2(bb), 4, 15 and 23-Original Act without definition in s. 2(bb) of cattle fair, if vague- Whether  Act can be struck down on the ground  of  vagueness and effect of striking down-If Act ceases to have  existence in  law-Decision  before amendment if res  judicata  between parties  after amendment-Act creating monopoly in  State  if violates   Art.  19(1)  (b),  (d),  (f)  and  (g)   of   the Constitution-Scope  of  s.  4-S. 15  if  violative  of  Art. 19(1)(f)-Municipal  Committee if citizen-If can complain  of violation   of  Art.  19-Direction  regarding  property   of Municipal Committee amounting to requisition-If violative of Art. 32-Directions regarding amenities-If authorised by Act.

HEADNOTE: In  the  State of Punjab local  authorities  and  individual owners of land were holding cattle fairs.  The Punjab Cattle Fairs  (Regulation)  Art,  1967, was  passed  by  the  State Legislature in exercise of powers under entry 28 of List  II of VII Schedule to the Constitution, declaring a monopoly in the  State  to hold cattle fairs and prohibiting  all  local authorities  and  individuals from holding cattle  fairs  at ’any  place in the State’.  There was no definition  of  the expression  ’cattle fair’ in the Act.  The validity  of  the Act was challenged on the ground that the provisions of  the Act  were  ’vague  and ambiguous’, and the  High  Court,  in Mohinder Singh Sawhney v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1968 Punj. 391,   accepted  the  contention.   ’Me  State   Legislature thereupon,  by Amendment Act 18 of 1968 introduced s.  2(bb) defining  the expression ’cattle fair’ to mean ’a  gathering of  more than 25 persons for the purpose of general sale  or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 13  

purchase of cattle’.  Fair Officers were appointed under  s. 4(1)  of  the Act, and under s. 4(2) they  declared  certain areas  as  fair  areas.   ’Some of  the  areas  so  declared belonged to a Municipal Committee in the State.  The Munici- pal  Committee,  a lessee from the Municipal  Committee  and some  residents  in the State, challenged the  Act  in  this Court on the following grounds (1)  Since  the  Act  was  struck  down  in  Mohinder  Singh Sawhney’s case, the Act ceased to have any existence in  law and could not therefore be amended; (2)  The  order of the High Court in that case  operated  as res  judicata between the parties and could not be  enforced without a re-enactment of the Act; (3)  The Act violated Arts. 19(1)(b), (d), (f) and (g); and (4)  Section  15 (if the Act, which authorises the State  to call upon a Panchayat Samiti or a Municipal Committee within whose jurisdiction the fair is held to deposit a  prescribed amount in the Cattle Fair Fund to cover the initial expenses of the fair and compels the local authority to abide by  the directions, was invalid. The  Municipal Committee also challenged the demand  by  the Fair  Officer,  asking  the Municipal  Committee  to  supply water, electricity and to make sanitary arrangements and  to make  the  staff  articles  and  offices  of  the  Municipal Committee available to the Fair Officer. 448 HELD:     (i) The Act as originally enacted was not vague. , When the Legislature did not furnish a definition of ’cattle fair’  it must be deemed to have used the expression in  its ordinary  signification, as meaning a periodical  concourse of  buyers  and sellers in a place, generally for  sale  and purchase  of  cattle, at times or on occasions  ordained  by custom. [454 C-E] But even if it was vague it could not have been struck  down on that ground.  The High Court in Mohinder Singh  Sawhney’s case  struck down the Act on the ground of vagueness on  the assumption  that  the validity of the Act was liable  to  be adjudged  by  the test of ’due process of  law’.   But  this Court,  in A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras,  [1950]  S.C.R. 88,  held that the doctrine of due process has no  place  in our  Constitution.  Superior Courts in India may  declare  a law  invalid, if the Legislature has no power to  enact  the law  or  if the law violates any of the  fundamental  rights guaranteed   in   Part  III  of  the  Constitution   or   is inconsistent  with any constitutional provision, but not  on the  ground that it is vague.  Therefore as a result of  the judgment  of  the High Court the Act did not cease  to  have existence in law. [453 C-D, G; 454 A-B] Kehar  Singh  v. The State of Punjab, (1969) 71  P.L.R.  24, approved. (2)  The decision in Mohinder Singh Sawhney’s case does  not operate as res judicata even in favour of the petitioners in that case.  Its effect was only that the Act was in law non- existent  so  long  as  there  was  no  definition  of   the expression  ’cattle ’fair’ in the Act.  But that defect  has been remedied by the Amending Act. [454 B-C] (3)  (a)  The Act does not impose unreasonable  restrictions upon  the fundamental rights guaranteed under Art.  19(1)(b) and (d).  It prohibits an individual or local authority from arranging  a  gathering  of more than  25  persons  for  the purpose  specified in the definition.  The  restriction  was only  for the purpose of making the monopoly effective,  and must  be  regarded as a reasonable  restriction  within  the meaning of cls. 19(3) and (5) upon the  freedom of  assembly and of free movement. [456 C-E]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 13  

(b)  The  Act  is restricted in its scope and  the  freedoms guaranteed by Art. 19(1) (f) and (g) are also not infringed. (i)  A  law which is ’basically and  essentially  necessary’ for  creating  a  State monopoly and  thereby  deprives  the citizens  of the right to carry on he same business is  not, by  virtue  of Art. 19(6), open to challenge on  the  ground that  it infringes the fundamental right guaranteed by  Art. 19(1)  (g).  In the present case, the primary object of  the Act is to give a monopoly to the ’State to hold cattle fairs and as a necessary concomitant of that monopoly, holding  of cattle  fairs  by  local  authorities  and  individuals   is prohibited.   The law will not also be exposed to attack  on the ground that the right to carry on business is  property, for,  the validity of restrictions on the right to carry  on occupation, trade or business, or to practice any profession must be adjudged only in the light of Art. 19(6).  Moreover, the  presumption of reasonableness of a statute  creating  a monopoly  in  the State applies not only in respect  of  the right under Art. 19(1)(g) but also under Art. 19(1)(f). [456 E-G; 457 A-C] Akadasi  Padhan  v. State of Orissa, [1963] Supp.  2  S.C.R. 691, followed. State  of Bihar v. Rameshwar Pratap Narain; [1962] 2  S.C.R. 382 and M. V. P. Ramunni Kurup v. Panchayat Board, Badagara, A.I.R. 1954 Mad. 754, referred to. 449 (ii) The   prohibition   imposed  upon   all   persons   and authorities  is in respect of only cattle fairs and  not  in respect  of  cattle  markets,  that  is,  places  where  the business  of  see  or purchase  is  regularly  conducted  by private  parties  and  not  as a fair.   The  Act  does  not prohibit  anyone  from carrying on the  business  of  cattle market on his own land. [455 E-F; 461 E] When  the business is in the nature of a market for sale  of sheep and goats brought by intending sellers ’for slaughter, such a place cannot be called a fair.  A person carrying  on his  business  in a cattle market on his own land  need  not take out a licence under s. 9 of the Act even though he  was collecting  brokerage and was carrying on the business of  a broker,  because,  it  is  only a  person  carrying  on  his business  within  a fair area, lawfully  declared,  that  is required to obtain the licence. [460 F-H] (iii)     Though  the  words used in s. 4 are wide  and  are capable  of the interpretation that the State could  hold  a cattle fair at any place, it is implicit in ss. 3 and 4 that the monopoly acquired by the State to hold and manage cattle fairs  is  confined to property belonging to the  State  and does  not  extend to the property of  local  authorities  or private owners. [456 A-C] A Municipal Committee is not a ’citizen’ within the  meaning of  Art.  19  and  therefore,  is  not  entitled  to   claim protection  of  any of the fundamental  ’rights  under  Art. 19.But a direction to make municipal property available  for holding  a  cattle  fair  by  the  ’State  is  a  threat  to requisition municipal property without authority of law  and is not a mere direction to regulate the fair held on  behalf of  the  Municipal Committee.  Such a taking  possession  of property without payment of compensation as required by Art. 31(2) must be deemed unauthorised and s. 23, giving the pro- visions  of  the Act a paramount  operation  notwithstanding anything  inconsistent in any other law, will not  supersede the constitutional guarantee. [458 E-G]  (4) Under s. 17(d), out of the Cattle Fair Fund, the amount recovered  from a local authority may be reimbursed but  the provision  in  s. 15, authorising the State to call  upon  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 13  

local  authority  to pay a sum of money towards  the  Cattle Fair  Fund  is an unreasonable deprivation of  property  and violates  the  right  under  Art. 19(1)  (f)  and  hence  is invalid. [457 C-E] Also  the demand made by the Fair Officer for assistance  of the  staff,  articles and offices of  the  Municipality  for holding  a  fair,  and the demand for supply  of  water  and electricity  and making suitable sanitary  arrangements  are not  warranted by any provision of the Act, and must be  de- clared invalid. [459 A-C]

JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL  JURISDICTION: Writ Petitions Nos. 295,  362,  365, 443 and 444 of 1968. Petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of the fundamental rights. H.   R.  Gokhale and Naunit Lal, for the petitioners (in  W. P. No. 295 of 1968). H.   R. Gokhale, Jagjit Singh Chawla, S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta, for the petitioner (in W.P. No. 362 of 1968). R.   K.  P. Shankar Dass Bishambar Lal and H. K.  Puri,  for the petitioners (in W.P. No. 365 of 1968). 450 Jagjit  Singh Chawla, S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta,  for  the petitioners (in W.P. Nos. 443 and 444 of 1968). Niren  De, Attorney-General, V. C. Mahajan and R.  N.  Sach- they,  for  the  respondents (in W.P. Nos. 295  and  362  of 1968). V.   C. Mahajan and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondents  (in W.P. No. 365 of 1968). R.   N. Sachthey, for the respondents (in W.P. Nos. 443  and 444 of 1968). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. Cattle fairs are held for the last many decades  in different parts of the territory of the State of Punjab,  by local authorities and individual owners of land.  The person or authority holding. the cattle fair provides facilities to cattle  owners for board and lodging and for stabling  their cattle  generally  in consideration of charges  including  a percentage  on  the price realised by sale  or  purchase  of cattle. The  Governor of Punjab with a view to control and  regulate cattle  fairs  promulgated  Ordinance  No.  14  of  1967  on November  4,  1967,  declaring a monopoly in  the  State  of Punjab  to  hold  cattle fairs  and  prohibiting  all  local authorities  and individuals from holding cattle  fairs  "at any place in the State".  This Ordinance was replaced by the Punjab Cattle Fairs (Regulation) Act 6 of 1968.  By s. 3  of the Act it is provided :                "(1)  The right to hold a cattle fair at  any               place in the State of, Punjab and to  control,               manage,  and  regulate such  fair  shall  vest               exclusively in the State Government and  shall               be  exercisable by it, in accordance with  the               provisions  of  this Act and  the  rules  made               thereunder,    through   such    persons    or               authorities as it may deem fit.               (2)   Notwithstanding  anything  contained  in               any other law for the time being in force  and               save as provided by sub-section (1), it  shall               be unlawful for any person or local  authority               to hold, control, manage or regulate a  cattle               fair at any place in the State of Punjab."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 13  

The expression "Cattle" is defined by S. 2(b) as including a buffalo,  camel,  cow, donkey, elephant, goat,  horse  mule, sheep  and  their young-ones and such other animals  as  the State  Government may by notification specify.  By  S.  4(1) authority is vested in the State Government to appoint  Fair Officers  for holding, controlling, managing and  regulating tattle fairs in a district.  By sub-s. (2) the Fair  Officer is  made responsible for making arrangements in  respect  of all matters connected with the holding of a cattle fair  and its proper control, management and regulation 451 and has also the power of- (i) defining the fair area;  (ii) reservation of sites or places for latrines, urinals, baths, shops,  exhibitions, shows, demonstrations,  foot-baths  for animals, water supply for drinking purposes, shelters, green and  dry  fodder, entertainment and similar  other  purposes necessary   in  connection  with  the  cattle  fair;   (iii) allotment  of  sites  temporarily for  commercial  or  other purposes  in connection with the cattle fair,  authorisation of  raising  of structures on such sites,  and  fixation  of rents  for  such  sites  in  the  prescribed  manner;   (iv) arrangements  for  watch and ward, lighting,  medical  first aid,   veterinary   aid,  sanitation,  tentage   and   other facilities as may be necessary in connection with the cattle fair;  and  (v) construction of temporary  offices  for  the purpose  of collecting taxes and fees imposed and levied  in connection with the cattle fair.  The expression "fair area" is  defined  in  s. 2 (d) as meaning  "such  area  within  a district  as  may  be specified by a fair  officer  for  the purpose  of  holding  a  cattle fair".  By  s.  5  power  is conferred upon the State Government to impose in a fair area during  the continuance of a cattle fair, tolls on  vehicles entering such area for business purposes and octroi duty  on goods  brought for sale within such, area.  Jurisdiction  of the  local  authorities to levy taxes and fees in  any  fair area in connection with the fair is excluded by s. 6. By  s. 8  it  is  provided that no person shall sell  cattle  at  a cattle   fair  unless  the  has  obtained   a   registration certificate  in  respect of cattle to be  sold.   Section  9 provides  for  licensing  of brokers.  By s.  15  the  State Government  is authorised to direct the Panchayat Samiti  or Municipal Committee, in whose jurisdiction the fair is to be held,  to  deposit in the Cattle Fair  Fund  the  prescribed amount,  not  exceeding one thousand rupees,  to  cover  the initial  expenses  of the fair and the  local  authority  so directed is enjoined to comply with the direction.   Section 16  provides  for the setting up of a Cattle  Fair  Fund  in which all fees, rent or other sums of money (not being tolls and taxes) received or realized under the provisions of  the Act  or  the  rules made thereunder, and  all  donations  or grants  made  to the Fund by the State Government,  a  local authority or any other person are to be credited.  By s.  18 penalties are prescribed for contravention of the provisions of  sub-s. (2) of s. 3. Power is conferred by s. 21 to  make regulations  to  provide against the outbreak or  spread  of fire  and  for certain other matters.  By s.  22  the  State Government is authorised to make rules for carrying out  the Purposes  of  the  Act.  The  Act,  however,  as  originally enacted  contained no definition of the  expression  "cattle fair". Validity  of the Punjab Cattle Fairs (Regulation) Act,  1967 was challenged in a group of petitions moved before the High Court  of  Punjab by persons interested  in  holding  cattle fairs:  Mohinder  Singh  Sawhney  v.  State  of  Punjab  and Others(1)  Before  the  High Court one  of  the  contentions

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 13  

raised by the (1)  A.I.R. [1968] Punjab 391. 452 petitioners  was that the provisions of the Act were  "Vague and  ambiguous",  and  on that account the  Act.  was  ultra vires.   The  Court  accepted that  contention.   The  Court observed  that  there was a distinction  between  a  "cattle market"  and  a  "cattle fair’ and since  no  definition  of "cattle  fair"  was supplied by the Act it was left  to  the executive authorities to determine what a "cattle fair"  was and  on that account "the infirmity went to the root of  the matter,  and  the Act was liable to be struck  down  in  its entirely  on  the ground of vagueness, even if some  of  its provisions were unexceptionable in themselves". The  State Legislature then enacted the Punjab Cattle  Fairs (Regulation)  Amendment Act 18 of 1968 which, introduced  by s. 2(bb) a definition of the expression "cattle fair" as  me "a  gathering  of  more than  twenty-five  persons  for  the purpose  of  general  sale or  purchase  of  cattle".   Fair Officers  were  appointed by the State Government  and  they issued  notifications.  declaring  certain  areas  as  "fair areas". A number of petitions were again moved in the High Court  of Punjab  for an order declaring invalid the Art  as  amended. The High Court of Punjab dismissed the petitions,  upholding the validity of the Act: Kehar Singh v. The State of  Punjab &  Another(1).   The  Court  in  that  case  held  that  the definition of "cattle fair" was not intended to bring within its compass sales by private individuals outside fair areas: it  was  intended  only to apply where  in  general,  people assemble at some place for the purpose of buying and selling cattle and the number of persons exceeds twenty-five,  and that Act 6. of 1968 as amended by Act 18 of 1968 "does not contravene  the  provisions of Arts. 19(1)(f) & (g)  of  the Constitution". Certain  persons interested in conducting cattle fairs  have filed  writ  petitions in this Court.  Arguments  which  are common in all the petitions may first be considered. We  are  unable to accept the argument that since  the  High Court  of  Punjab  by  their  judgment  in  Mohinder   Singh Sawhney’s  case (2 ) struck down the Act, Act 6 of 1968  had ceased  to  have ,any existence in law, ’and  that,  in  any event,  assuming that the judgment of the Punjab High  Court in Mohinder Singh Sawhney’s. case (2 ) did not make the  Act non-existent,  as  between the parties in whose  favour  the order  was passed in the earlier writ petitions,  the  order operated as res judicata, and on that account the Act  could not  be  enforced without re-enactment.  The High  Court  of Punjab in Mohinder Singh Sawhney’s case(2) (1) (1969) 71 P.L.R. 24. (2)  A.I.R. [1968] Punjab 391.                             453               "......  in  our opinion  the  petitions  must               succeed on the ground that the legislation  is               vague, uncertain and ambiguous.",               and also (at p. 394) that-.               ".........as  the infirmity of vagueness  goes               to  the  root   of  the  matter,   legislative               enactment  has  to be struck down as  a  whole               even  if  some  of  its  provisions  are   un-               exceptionable in themselves." But  the rule that an Act of a competent legislature may  be "struck  down" by the Courts on the ground of  vagueness  is alien to our Constitutional system.  The Legislature of  the State  of  Punjab,  was competent to  enact  legislation  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 13  

respect  of "fairs" vide entry 28 of List 11 of the  Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.  A law may be declared invalid by  the superior Courts in India if the legislature  has  no power  to enact the law or that-the law violates any of  the fundamental   rights   guaranteed  in  Part   III   of   the Constitution  or  is inconsistent  with  any  constitutional provision,  but not on the ground that it is vague.   It  is true  that  in Claude C. Connally  v.  General  Construction Company(1)  it was held by the Supreme Court of  the  United States of America that               "A  statute which either forbids  or  requires               the  doing of an act in terms so,  vague  that               men  of common intelligence  must  necessarily               guess  at  its meaning and differ  as  to  its               application  violates the first  essential  of               due process of law." But  the  rule  enunciated by the  American  Courts  has  no application  under our Constitutional set up.  The  rule  is regarded  as  an  essential of  the  "due  process  clauses" incorporated  in the American Constitution by the 5th &  the 14th  Amendments.  The Courts in India have no authority  to declare a statute invalid on the ground that it violates the "due  process of law".  Under our Constitution, the test  of due process of law cannot be applied to statutes enacted  by the  Parliament or the State legislatures.  This  Court  has definitely  ruled that the doctrine of "due process of  law" has no place in our Constitutional system: A. K. Gopaian  v. The State of Madras(2).  Kania, C.J., observed (at p. 120).               "There  is  considerable  authority  for   the               statement  that the Courts are not at  liberty               to  declare  an  Act  void  because  in  their               opinion it is opposed to a spirit supposed  to               pervade the Constitution but not expressed  in               words.  .  .  .  .  it  is  only  in   express               constitutional provisions limiting legislative               power and controlling the temporary will of  a               majority  by  a permanent  and  paramount  law               settled by the deliberate wisdom of the nation               that one (1) 70 L. Edn. 322. (2) [1950] S.C.R. 88- 454               can  find  a  safe and solid  ground  for  the               authority of Courts of Justice to declare void               any legislative enactment." The order made by the High Court in Mohinder Singh Sawhney’s case(1)  striking down the Act was passed on the  assumption that  the validity of the Act was liable to be  adjudged  by the test of "due process of law".  The Court was plainly  in error  in so assuming.  We are also unable to hold that  the previous decision operates as res judicata even in favour of the petitioners in whose petitions an order was made by  the High Court in the first group ,of petitions.  The effect  of that  decision  was  only  that the Act  was  in  law,  non- existent,  so  long  as  there  was  no  definition  of  the expression  "cattle fair" in the Act.  That defect has  been remedied by the Punjab Act 18 of 1968. We  may hasten to observe, that we are unable to agree  that the Act as originally enacted was unenforceable even on the’ ground of vagueness.  It is true that the expression "cattle fair" was not defined in the Act.  The Legislature, when  it did  not  furnish the definition of the  expression  "cattle fair"  must  be deemed to have used the  expression  in  its ordinary  signification, as meaning, a periodical  concourse of  buyers  and sellers in a place generally  for  sale  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 13  

purchase  of  cattle at times or on occasions  ,ordained  by custom. We  agree with the High Court that by enacting the  Act  the State  was  not attempting to prevent all  transactions  for sale and purchase of cattle.  The State took upon itself  by the  Act  a  monopoly of conducting fairs, but  it  did  not thereby  seek  to monopolise all transactions  of  sale  and purchase  in cattle.  This is now made clear the  definition of "cattle fair" in s. 2(bb). A  law  which vests in the State a monopoly to  carry  on  a certain  trade or business to the extent that it has  direct relation  to  the creation of the monopoly, is not  open  to challenge  on  the  ground  of  violation  of  the   freedom guaranteed by Art. 19(1) (g).  As pointed out by this  Court in Akadasi Padhan V. State of Orissa (2) (at p. 707)               "A  law relating to’ a State Monopoly  Cannot,               in the context [of Art. 19 ( 1 ) (g) ] include               all  the provisions contained in the said  law               whether  they  have direct relation  with  the               creation   of  the  monopoly  or  not.   .   .               expression should be construed to mean the law               relating  to  the monopoly in  its  absolutely               essential  features.   If  a  law  is   passed               creating  a State monopoly, the  Court  should               enquire  what are the provisions of  the  said               law   which  are  basically  and   essentially               necessary for creating the (1)  A.l.R. [1968] Punjab 391 (2) [1963] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 691. 455               State  monopoly.  It is only  those  essential               and  basic provisions which are  protected  by               the  latter part of Art. 19(6).  If there  are               other  provisions  made by the Act  which  are               subsidiary,  incidental  or  helpful  to   the               operation  of the monopoly, they do  not  fall               under the said part and their validity must be               judged  under. the first part of  Art.  19(6).               In  other words, the effect of  the  amendment               made  in  Art.  19(6) is to  protect  the  law               relating to the creation of monopoly and  that               means  that it is only the provisions  of  the               law  which  are  integrally  and   essentially               connected  with the creation of  the  monopoly               that   are   protected.   The  rest   of   the               provisions which may be incidental do not fall               under the latter part of Art. 19(6) and  would               inevitably  have  to satisfy the test  of  the               first part of Art. 19(6)." The  provisions of the Act which seek to monopolise for  the State  the,  right to carry on cattle  fairs  are  protected against   the  challenge  that  they  put  an   unreasonable restriction  upon  persons  carrying on  the  occupation  of holding  cattle fairs.  What is implicit in the grant  of  a monopoly  to the State is expressly enacted in s. 3(2)  that no  other person or authority may conduct a cattle  fair  at any  place  in  the State of Punjab.   But  the  restriction operates  only  in  respect of cattle fairs  and  not  other trades  or occupations relating to dealings in cattle.   The Act is restricted in its scope: the prohibition imposed upon all  persons and authorities restraining them from  holding, controlling  managing  and regulating cattle  fairs  at  any place  in  the State of Punjab extend only to  cattle  fairs strictly  so-called,  and  not to  cattle  markets.  The  be monopoly declared by the Act does not invest the State  with

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 13  

the monopoly to conduct cattle markets, i.e., places  where the  business of sale or purchase is regularly conducted  by private parties and not as a fair.  Any attempt made by  the Officers  of the State claiming to exercise authority  under the  Act to prohibit cattle markets is without authority  of law. The Act also does not invest the State with authority to de- clare  private  property  of an individual  or  of  a  local authority,  a  fair area.  Section 4(2).  enables  the  Fair Officer  to define a fair area, to reserve sites  or  places for  certain  facilities, to make  temporary  allotment  for commercial  and other purposes and to arrange for watch  and ward and for construction of temporary offices.  The  Cattle Fair  Officer  is not thereby authorised to  hold  fairs  on lands not belonging to the State.  In defining a "fair area" and  in  making  reservation,  allotment,  construction  and arrangements  of the nature mentioned in cls. (i) to (v)  of sub-s.  (2) of s. 4 the Cattle Fair Officer cannot  trespass upon private property.  It is implicit in the provisions  of the  Act  that the State will hold cattle fairs on  its  own lands and not on private lands. 456 The  words used in s. 4 are wide and may be capable  of  the interpretation  that the right to hold, control, manage  and regulate  a cattle fair at any place in the State of  Punjab under  S.  3  (1 ) authorises the State  to  hold,  control, manage  and regulate fairs in all places  including  private lands.  But it would be reasonable to interpret the Act,  so as  not  to authorise violation of  the  fundamental  rights guaranteed  by Arts. 19 and 31 of the Constitution.   It  is implicit in the provisions of ss. 3 & 4 of the Act that  the monopoly  acquired  by the State to hold and  manage  cattle fairs  may  be held on property belonging to the  State  and does  not  extend to the property of  local  authorities  or private owners. The   contention  that  the  provisions  of  the  Act,   and especially  the  definition of "cattle fair"  in  s.  2(bb), impose unreasonable restrictions upon the fundamental rights guaranteed under Art. 19(1) (b) & (d) has, in our  judgment, no substance.  The definition of cattle fair in s. (bb) does not  infringe the right of citizens under Art.  19(1)(b)  to assemble  peaceably  and without arms, and the  right  under Art.  1 9 ( 1 ) (d) to move freely throughout the  territory of India.  By the definition clause concourse of twenty five persons   is  not  prohibited:  the  Act  does   not   place restrictions  upon  the  freedom  of  assembly  or  of  free movement either under cl. (b) or cl. (d) of Art. 19(1).  The Act  only  prohibits an individual or local  authority  from arranging  a gathering of more than twenty-five persons  for the  purpose specified in the definition of  "cattle  fair". The  restriction  for  the purpose of  making  the  monopoly effective must be regarded as reasonable within the  meaning of cls. (3) & (5) of Art. 19. By imposing restrictions upon the right to hold a fair,  the citizens are not deprived of their property, and the freedom guaranteed by ’Art. 19(1)(f) is not infringed.  The  primary object of the Act is to give a monopoly to the State to hold cattle fairs.  As a necessary concomitant of that  monopoly, holding of cattle fairs by local authorities and individuals is  prohibited.   The prohibition flows  directly  from  the assumption  of  monopoly by the State and falls  within  the terms of At. 19 (6) of the Constitution.  It is a  provision of  the  law creating monopoly  "basically  and  essentially necessary" for creating the State monopoly to prevent  other persons from conducting the same business.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 13  

Our  attention was invited to the decision of this Court  in State  of  Bihar  v.  Rameshwar  Pratap  Narain  Singh   and Others(1)  and  to a decision of the Madras  High  Court  in Mandivil   Vania  Pudukudi  Ramunni  Kurup  and  Others   v. Panchayat  Board, Badagara and Others(2 ) in support of  the plea  that  a right to hold a fair is property.   But  those cases  have  no  bearing on the question  arising  in  these petitions.  A law which creates a monopoly to (1) [1962] 2 S.C.R. 382. (2) A.I.R. [1954] Mad. 754.                             457 carry  on a business in the State and thereby deprives  the citizens  of, the right to carry on that business by  virtue of Art. 19(6) is not open to challenge on the ground that it infringes the Fundamental right guaranteed by Art. 19(1) (g) :  The law win not also be exposed to attack on  the  ground that  the  right to carry on business is property,  for  the validity   of  restrictions  on  the  right  to   carry   on occupation, trade or business, or to practise any profession must  be adjudged only in the light of Art. 19(6).   In  any event  the  presumption  of  reasonableness  of  a   statute creating a monopoly in the State may come to aid not only in respect  of  the  claim  to enforce  the  right  under  Art. 19(1)(g) but under Art. 19(1)(f) as well. Section 15 which authorises the State to call upon a Pancha- yat   Samiti   of  a  Municipal  Committee,   within   whose jurisdiction the fair is to be held to deposit in the Cattle Fair Fund the prescribed amount, not exceeding one  thousand rupees  to  cover  the  initial expenses  of  the  fair  and compelling  the local authority to abide by the  directions, is  invalid.  It is clearly a provision for  deprivation  of property.  Reasonableness of such a provision was not set up either in the affidavit or in the arguments before us. It is true  that under s. 17 (d) out of the Cattle Fair  Fund  the amount  which has been recovered from a local authority  may be  reimbursed, but the provision authorising the  State  to call  upon a local authority to pay a sum of  money  towards the  Cattle Fair Fund is, in our judgment, unreasonable  and must  be  declared  invalid.   The  learned  Attomey-General appearing  on behalf of the State of Punjab did not seek  to support the provision. To sum up, the power which the State Government may exercise to declare a fair area and to make provision for reservation of  sites, allotment of sites temporarily for commercial  or other  purposes,  and to arrange for watch and ward  and  to construct  temporary offices may be exercised only on  lands belonging  to the State.  No such power may be exercised  in respect of lands owned by local. authorities or individuals. The  monopoly  which is acquired by the State by s. 3  is  a monopoly  to hold, control, manage and regulate a  fair  and not a cattle-market business.  An attempt to prevent persons from  conducting  the business of cattle. markets  and  from holding, controlling, managing and regulating cattle markets is  unauthorised,  for by s. 3  private  individuals,  local authorities   and  associations  incorporated  or  not   are prohibited  only  from holding cattle fairs and  not  cattle markets. In  the light of these principles we proceed to examine  the claims made in the five petitions. The  Fair  Officers have not made any  declaration  of  fair areas  which  include the lands of the petitioners  in  Writ Petitions Nos. 458 362,  443  & 444 of 1968.  In respect of the  lands  of  the petitioners  in  Writ Petitions Nos. 295 and 365 of  1968  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 13  

notification defining a fair area has been made. Writ Petition No. 295 of    1968 This petition is filed by the Municipal Committee, Amritsar. By  letter dated August 26, 1968, the  Deputy  Commissioner, Amritsar,  informed  the Municipal Committee that  a  cattle fair  was  intended to be held as scheduled on  the  "Cattle Fair  Ground  (Mal  Mandi)", under  the  management  of  the District  Fair  Officer,  and the  Municipal  Committee  was required to arrange to supply water and electricity, to make suitable  sanitary arrangements, to deposit the income  from Baisakhi  Cattle Fair in Government Treasury in Cattle  Fair Fund  and to deliver the record in that behalf to  the  Fair Officer.   The  Section  Officer,  District  Amritsar,  also served  an  order, purported to be made under s. 4  (2)  (i) read  with s. 2 (d) of the Punjab Cattle Fairs  (Regulation) Act, 1967, specifying the fair area, for the purpose of con- trolling,  managing, regulating and holding the Cattle  Fair from  October 16, 1968 to October 27, 1968, at Ram Talui  Ki Mandi  described  as "2 Kilometres from  the  main  building situated  in  Cattle  Fair Ground at  Ramtabi’  (Mal  Mandi) Amritsar". A Municipal Committee is not, according to the decisions  of this Court, a "citizen" within the meaning of Art. 19.   The Municipal  Committee is, therefore, not entitled  to  claim protection of. any of the fundamental rights under Art.  19. But  the State is incompetent to declare land  belonging  to the Municipal Committee as falling within the fair area, and to  take  possession of that land in exercise of  the  power conferred  by  the  Act, without providing  for  payment  of compensation  guaranteed  by  Art.  31(2).   The   Municipal Committee  is by order of the Fair Officer deprived  of  its property  for  the duration of the fair.  The Act  does  not authorise  the holding of cattle fairs on the land of  local authorities,  individuals or associations.  A  direction  to make Municipal property available for holding a cattle  fair by  the State is a threat to requisition municipal  property without   authority   of   law  and   without   payment   of compensation,  and must be deemed unauthorised.  Section  23 of the Act which gives the provisions of the Act a paramount operation,  notwithstanding anything inconsistent  therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force  will not supersede a constitutional guarantee. It was argued on behalf of the State that by the order  only directions to control, manage and regulate the fair held  on behalf of the Municipal Committee were intended to be given. But that is not the effect of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner.    The   Deputy  Commissioner   informed   the Municipal  Committee that possession of its land  should  be handed over so that the State                             459 may,  be able to hold the fair under the provisions  of  the Punjab Cattle Fairs (Regulation) Act, 1967.  Section 3(1) is intended only to provide for a monopoly in the State to hold cattle  fairs.  and  to control, manage  and  regulate  such fairs.   The  demand. made by the Fair  Officer  asking  the Municipal Committee to supply water, electricity and to make sanitary  arrangements  and make the  staff,  articles.  and offices  of  the Municipal Committee available to  the  Fair Officer  is not warranted by any provision of the Act.   The notification  issued by the Fair Officer defining  the  fair area.  inclusive  of the land of Mat  Mandi  is,  therefore, unauthorised.   The  demand  made by the  Fair  Officer  for assistance  of  the  "staff, articles  and  offices  of  the Municipality"  for  holding  the fair and’  the  demand  for supply  of  ’water and electricity and making  suit-.  able

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 13  

sanitary    arrangements   is   also   uncalled   for    and unauthorised..  The directions must, therefore, be  declared invalid.                Writ Petition No. 362 of 1968 The  petitioner is Sardara Singh.  He claims that he  is  in lawful  possession  of a piece of land situated  in  village Hussainpur, Tahsil and District Rupar (Punjab), and that for the last ten years he holds a cattle market on that piece of land  from the first to the fourth of every month.  He  also asserted  that  he has been holding cattle  markets  on  the lands,  in his lawful possession at Kurali, Anandpur  Saheb, Marunda  (District  Rupar)  within  the  State  of   Punjab. According  to  the petitioner, for the  purpose  of  holding cattle markets on the lands.in his occupation at Hussainpur, the  petitioner had constructed a well for  providing  water to. the cattle, with sheds, and mangers.  He further claimed that  he  provides chaff cutters, tents,  charpais  and  all other  amenities which are essential for the cattle and  the merchants.   It  appears  from the  averments  made  by  the petitioner that he is holding cattle fairs.  No  declaration was made defining any fair area which included’ the lands of the petitioner.  The State, for reasons already set out,  is not  entitled  to  hold a cattle fair on  the  land  in  the occupation   of   the  petitioner  without   providing   for compensation  as guaranteed under Art. 31(2).  But  on  that account the petitioner is not entitled to hold a cattle fair even on his own lands. Writ Petition No. 365 of 1968 The  petitioner  is  Jagtar Singh.  He claims  that  he  has obtained  for  the period April 1, 1968 to March  31,  1969, from  the Municipal Committee, Amritsar, a piece of land  on lease  called  the Ahata near the."Butcher Khana"  known  as "Adda  BakarMandi".  The land is used for an  enclosure  for sheep  and  goats brought for sale.  The  petitioner  states that  he has constructed near the Butcher-Khana  ten  kothas around  a vacant. piece of land for enclosure of  goats  and sheep brought by prospective sellers and 460 has also constructed some rooms where he provides board  and lodging  to  the merchants who come to Adda Bakar  Mandi  in connection  with  their  business.  He has set  out  in  his petition the manner in which the business is carried on  and the  charges made by him.  It may be sufficient  to  mention that the petitioner claims that he conducts a cattle  market and not a cattle fair. The Fair Officer issued a declaration under s. 4(2)(i)  read with  s. 2(d) of the Punjab Cattle Fairs (Regulation )  Act, 1967,  specifying  "2  Kilometres  from  the  main  building situated  in the Cattle Fair Ground at Bakar  Mandi  outside Lahori Gate" as a fair area for the purpose of  controlling, managing, regulating ’and holding the Cattle Fair, Amritsar, at  Bakar Mandi outside Lahori Gate.  The Fair Officer  also addressed a letter to the petitioner dated October 25, 1968, informing  him  that the Punjab Government  had  exclusively undertaken  the work of holding, managing,  controlling  and supervising the Cattle Fairs under s. 3 of the Punjab Cattle Fairs  (Regulation) Act, 1967, and that the  petitioner  who was carrying on the business of holding a cattle fair should stop running the Bakar Mandi.  The Fair Officer informed the petitioner  that the ground of the Bakar Mandi  had  already been  specified as fair area by him and on that account  the petitioner  was  prohibited  to work  as  commission  agent, unless he got a broker’s licence under, the Act. The land in, respect of which the declaration has been  made as  fair  area. is the land of the Municipal  Committee,  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 13  

which  under  a  licence or a lease  the  petitioner  is  in possession.  For reasons which we have already set out,  the Government of Punjab is not competent to declare the land of the Bakar Mandi a fair area.  The notification declaring the Bakar Mandi as fair area is, therefore, invalid. By s. 3 of the Act the cattle fairs can be held in the State of  Punjab  only by the State and by no other  person.   But prima facie the business carried on by the petitioner is  in the  nature of a market for sale of sheep and goats  brought by intending sellers for slaughter.  Such a place cannot  be called a fair. It  was  urged  on  behalf  of  the  State  that  since  the petitioner  was  collecting brokerage and  carrying  on  the business  of  a broker, he was bound to take-out  a  licence under  s.  9  of  the Act.  But a  person  carrying  on  his business within the fair area lawfully declared is  required to obtain a licence, but not in respect of his business in a cattle market. The  petition  filed  by Jagtar Singh  must,  therefore,  be allowed  and  the order declaring the petitioner’s  land  as fair  area and the intimation calling upon him to  stop  his business of cattle market is unauthorised.                             461 Writ Petition Nos. 443 & 444 of 1968 The  petitioner  in  these petitions are  Narain  Singh  and another.  They claim that they are in ,legal possession"  of different pieces of land taken oil lease within the State of Punjab   at  Khanna,  Doraha  (District   Ludhiana),   sunam (District  Sangrur) and also in other Districts  where  they have  been holding cattle markets for the last  many  years. They  claimed that they provide the Prospective sellers  and purchasers facilities like cots for resting, drinking water, sheds,,  mangers, chaff-cutters, tents,  light,  chowkidars, dry fodder and all other essential amenities.  They  further claimed that the intending vendors come to their lands  with cattle and sell the, cattle, bargains being struck.  through brokers  in the market arranged by the Petitioners on  those pieces of land. It  is not clear from the averments made, in the  petitions whether  the  so-called market is of the nature of  a  fair. the Petitioners are prohibited from holding or conducting  a cattle  fair, since the enactment of Punjab Act 6  of  1968. The  lands  belonging  to  the  petitioners  have  not  been included in a cattle fair area under the notification issued by the Fair Officer.  Without deciding the question  whether the business carried on by the petitioners is in the  nature of  a fair or a market, we declare that the petitioners  are not  entitled to carry on the business of a cattle fair  and the,  relief  claimed by them in Paragraph-21(b)  cannot  be granted.   We deem it necessary to add that the  petitioners are  not prohibited from carrying on the business of  cattle market on their own lands. There will be no order as to costs in these petitions. V.P.S. sup CI/69-11 462