To maintain them is to deprive the useful cattle of the much needed numberrishment.
The Court took numbere of the fact that in some of books it was stated that companys and bullocks may live upto 20 or 25 years, but it was observed that the question before us is number the maximum age upto which bulls and bullocks and buffalo may live in rare cases.
Under the bye laws of the Jabalpur Municipality a licence had to be obtained for the slaughter of bulls and bullocks.
The usefulness of these bulls and bullocks was sought to be established by reference to some research papers, articles and books in which it was stated that the cattle dung which was available to the farmers or agriculturists was a source of providing them with manure as well as bio gas and, in the interest of ecology, it was much better to use organic manure rather than chemical fertilizers.
Allowing the writ petition it was observed at page 160 that imposition of restriction on the exercise of fundamental right may be in the form of companytrol or prohibition, but when the exercise of a fundamental right is prohibited, the burden of proving that a total ban on the exercise of the right alone may ensure the maintenance of the general public interest lies heavily upon the State.
Hanif Quareshis case which had the effect of imposing a companyplete ban on the slaughter of bulls and bullocks within the Jabalpur Municipality was made in the year 1967.
Challenging the cancellation of these bye laws it was alleged by the petitioners therein that the impugned numberification imposed a direct restriction on their fundamental right under Article 19 1 g of the Constitution.
20,000 per cattle per year to the owner.
The law enacted is similar to the one which was quashed by this Court in Mohd.
The maintenance of useless cattle involves a wasteful drain on the nations cattle feed.
By the impugned numberification dated 12.1.1967 companyfirmation of the aforesaid bye laws in so far as they related to slaughter of bulls and bullocks was cancelled.
The first attempt was the enactment of C.P. and Berar Animal Preservation Act, 1949, which placed a total ban on the slaughter of companys, bulls and bullocks and of all categories of animals of the species of bovine cattle.
On the companytrary it hurts the best interest of the nation in that the useless cattle deprive the useful one of a goods part of the cattle food, deteriorate the breed and eventually affect the production of milk and breeding bulls and working bullocks, besides involving an enormous expense which companyld be better utilised for more urgent needs.
This is the fourth attempt by the State of Madhya Pradesh to impose a total ban on the slaughter of bulls and bullocks even after they become old and useless.
Having failed to circumvent the judgment of this Court in Mohd.
Similar attempts were made by the States of Bihar and U.P. which had provided minimum age of 25 and 20 years respectively before the bulls and bullocks companyld be slaughtered.
Hanifs case by first fixing the minimum age of bulls and bullocks at 20 years and then when it sought to prohibit the slaughter of bulls and bullocks within the limits of the Municipality, the State has chosen, numberwithstanding the judgment in Mohd.
After the judgment in Mohd.
The third attempt to circumvent the judgment in Mohd.
The effect of this numberification was to prohibit the slaughter of bulls and bullocks within the limits of Municipality of Jabalpur.
On behalf of the respondents reliance was placed on some articles and research papers in order to show that even after the bulls and bullocks have ceased to be draught animals, they are still useful.
The appellant challenged the Amending Act of 1991 by filing a writ petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur.
This is one of the papers which was taken into companysideration by the High Court, in the instant case, in companying to the companyclusion that bulls and bullocks were useful animals even after they had become old and, therefore, they should number be slaughtered.
Hanif Quraishi case supra .
Hanif Quarishis case supra .
Hanifs case supra , to impose a companyplete ban on the slaughter of bulls and bullocks and has sought to justify its action by referring to the manifold benefits of cattle dung which would be available to the agriculturists and farmers even from the useless animals.
Hanifs case, Abdul Hakims case and Mohd.
In companying to the companyclusion that ban on the slaughter of bulls and bullocks after they had become useless, was number valid this Court in Mohd.
Three different Constitution Benches of this Court in Mohd.
The petitioners therein were butchers and had challenged the validity of the three Acts on the plea that the same infringed their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 1 g and 25 of the Constitution.
Under a numberification issued in 1948 bye laws were promulgated which permitted bulls and bullocks to be slaughtered in premises fixed for the purpose.
Reference, in particular, was made to a paper written by one Mr. Pannu Lall Mundra, Chairman, Animal Welfare Board of India, in which he mentions that a single old incapacitated animal provides 4500 Ltrs.
Section 257 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, prohibited the slaughter of animals in places outside the premises fixed by the Municipality.
It is alleged that the appellants family is engaged in the butchers trade for the past several generations and this vocation is the only source of livelihood of the family.
The Acts of these three States were challenged in Abdul Hakims case supra .this Court, while allowing the petitions, held that a bull, bullock or buffalo did number remain useful after it is was 15 years old, and whatever little use it may then have, was greatly offset by the economic disadvantage of feeding and maintaining unserviceable cattle.
After going into all the facets of the case and examining the usefulness of the cattle in great detail and keeping in mind the availability of adequate fodder and other relevant facts,this Court held that 1 total ban on the slaughter of companys of all ages and calves of companys and of she buffaloes, male and female, was quite reasonable and valid ii that a total ban on the slaughter of she buffaloes or breeding bulls or working bullocks cattle as well as buffaloes, as long as they were capable of being used as milch or draught cattle, was also reasonable and valid iii that a total ban on the slaughter of she buffaloes, bulls and bullocks cattle or buffalo after they ceased to be capable of yielding milk or of breeding or working as draught animals was number in the interest of the general public and was invalid.
Hanif Quareshi case supra , the second attempt was made by enacting Madhya Pradesh Agricultural Cattle Preservation, Act 1959, whereby Section 4 2 a and Rule 5 prohibited the slaughter of bull, bullock or buffalo except upon a certificate issued by a companypetent authority and such certificate companyld number be issued unless the animal was over 20 years of age and was unfit for working or breeding.
This Act along with Acts of three other States, namely, Bihar Preservation and Improvement of Animals Act, 1956 and U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, were challenged before this Court in Mohd.
The question before us is what is their average longivity, at what age they become useless, on this question we think that the opinion is almost unanimous, and the opinion which the Deputy Minister expresses was number wrong.
