Reasonable restriction on slaughter house closure upheld as valid regulation in public interest and livestock preservation.

A limited closure of a municipal slaughter house on seven specified days was upheld as a reasonable restriction on the right to trade under Article 19(1)(g), because the regulatory measure was not a total ban, was linked to recognised occasions, and served public interest and municipal welfare. The Court also held that the standing orders did not offend Article 14, since the classification between butchers dealing in cattle and those dealing in sheep and goat rested on intelligible differentia and had a rational nexus with the object of livestock preservation. The impugned standing orders were therefore constitutionally valid.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the closure of the municipal slaughter house on seven specified days imposed an unreasonable restriction on the right to carry on trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether the standing orders offended Article 14 of the Constitution of India by making an impermissible classification between butchers dealing in cattle and those dealing in sheep and goat.

Issue (i): Whether the closure of the municipal slaughter house on seven specified days imposed an unreasonable restriction on the right to carry on trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The power under Section 466(1)(D)(b) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 enabled the Municipal Commissioner to fix days and hours for keeping a slaughter house open. A restriction on the exercise of a fundamental right may be valid if it is reasonable and in the interest of the general public. The Court applied the settled test of reasonableness by examining the nature of the right, the object of the restriction, the extent of the burden, and the public interest sought to be served. The seven closed days were linked to recognised occasions and were treated as suitable days of abstinence from meat. The standing orders were also capable of serving the welfare of municipal staff by ensuring holidays. In that setting, the restriction was not a total ban on the trade and was justified as a limited regulatory measure.

Conclusion: The closure of the slaughter house on seven days was a reasonable restriction and did not violate Article 19(1)(g).

Issue (ii): Whether the standing orders offended Article 14 of the Constitution of India by making an impermissible classification between butchers dealing in cattle and those dealing in sheep and goat.

Analysis: Article 14 permits reasonable classification if it rests on an intelligible differentia and the differentia has a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. The object of the impugned standing orders was the preservation, protection and improvement of livestock. Cattle, sheep and goat were found to be different classes in terms of utility to society and agricultural economy. Butchers slaughtering cattle formed a distinct occupational class, and that classification had a direct nexus with the objective of livestock preservation. The differential treatment was therefore not hostile discrimination but a permissible classification.

Conclusion: The standing orders did not violate Article 14.

Final Conclusion: The impugned standing orders were constitutionally valid, and the challenge to the High Court's decision failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A limited regulatory closure of a slaughter house on selected days is valid if it is reasonable, serves the general public interest, and rests on a permissible classification having a rational nexus with the object of livestock preservation.

---