Cattle movement controls cannot be used to block export; transit movement and related directions were invalid.

Statutory power to regulate cattle movement under the Gujarat Essential Commodities and Cattle (Control) Act, 2005 must rest on the required government opinion and a genuine link to supply, distribution, or fair availability; a blanket restriction without that foundation is unsustainable. The notification was also said not to cover cattle merely passing through a drought-affected area for export, because transit movement does not advance the Act's object. The accompanying withdrawals of health-certification services and police directions for check posts were treated as a colourable use of power to obstruct export, an area falling within Union competence, and were therefore invalid.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the notification prohibiting movement of cattle into drought-affected areas under section 4(1)(b) of the Gujarat Essential Commodities and Cattle (Control) Act, 2005 was valid; (ii) whether that notification could be applied to cattle merely in transit for export; (iii) whether the notification and connected communications were issued in colourable exercise of power to obstruct export; and (iv) whether the communication withdrawing health-checkup and certification services and the police communication directing check posts could be sustained.

Issue (i): Whether the notification prohibiting movement of cattle into drought-affected areas under section 4(1)(b) of the Gujarat Essential Commodities and Cattle (Control) Act, 2005 was valid.

Analysis: The statutory power under section 4(1)(b) could be exercised only if the State Government formed the requisite opinion that the order was necessary or expedient for maintaining or increasing the supply of cattle or securing their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices. The impugned notification did not record such opinion and instead proceeded on the footing that cattle in drought areas were at stake because of shortage of fodder and susceptibility to disease. The Act also required minimal interference with ordinary avocations of life, and the blanket restraint on export-linked movement was inconsistent with that mandate.

Conclusion: The notification did not satisfy the statutory preconditions and was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether that notification could be applied to cattle merely in transit for export.

Analysis: Cattle carried through a drought-affected area for export, without the area being the destination, stood on the same footing as transit goods. The object of the notification was to regulate supply and maintenance within the drought area, and transit movement had no bearing on that object. Reading the notification to bar mere passage through the area would lead to an unreasonable and absurd result and would go beyond the statutory purpose.

Conclusion: The notification did not apply to cattle merely in transit for export.

Issue (iii): Whether the notification and connected communications were issued in colourable exercise of power to obstruct export.

Analysis: The sequence of events, including the Chief Minister's public statement, the simultaneous withdrawal of certification services, and the police communication confined to Kutch district, showed a coordinated effort to prevent export from Tuna Port. The State could not directly regulate export, which lies in the Union domain, and could not do indirectly under the guise of cattle regulation, animal-health administration, or police supervision. The measures were therefore found to be motivated by an oblique purpose and discriminatory in effect.

Conclusion: The notification and the related communications were issued in colourable exercise of power and could not be sustained.

Issue (iv): Whether the communication withdrawing health-checkup and certification services and the police communication directing check posts could be sustained.

Analysis: The withdrawal of certification services went beyond the bounds of the delegated role when it was used to obstruct export rather than merely regulate certification. The police communication was directed only to Kutch district, although animal transport occurred throughout the State, and the setting up of special check posts with private animal-welfare participation was not shown to arise from any general statutory scheme. The selective and targeted nature of these directions rendered them invalid.

Conclusion: The impugned communications were unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The challenged measures were struck down because they did not conform to the statutory scheme and were used as a device to prevent export of livestock from Tuna Port.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory power enacted for regulating cattle movement and maintenance cannot be used as a colourable device to obstruct export, especially where the requisite statutory opinion is absent and the measure, in substance, regulates a Union subject.

---