1 2 to this appeal moved a petition in the High Court of Bombay for an order canceling or setting aside the numberice dated October 14, 1961, and the numberification dated November 27, 1961, for an order restraining the Corporation from demanding fee for removal of such carcasses, from taking any steps or proceedings against the respondents for enforcement of the provisions of ss.
of 1966 .
K. Daphtary, Attorney General, N.S. Bindra, R. Gopalakrishnan and S.P. Nayar, for the appellant in C.A. No.
Appeals from the judgment and order, dated August 20, 1964 of the Bombay High Court in Appeals Nos.
53 and,55 of 1963.
Appeal from the judgment and order, dated March 8, 1963 of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. The High Court of Bombay has declared s. 372 g and a part of s. 385 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act 3 of 1888 as amended by Act 14 of 1961 ultra vires because in their view these provisions infringe the guarantee of Arts.
367 c , 372 g and 385 of the Act and from claiming ownership in the carcasses of the dead animals of private owners.
On October 14, 1961 the Assistant Head Supervisor of the Municipal Corporation called upon the first respondent to stop removing carcasses from the K Ward of the Corporation.
The High Court did number pass any order companysequential on the declaration.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
7 of 1963.
B. Dadachanji, for the appellants in C.As.
Niren De, Solicitor General, G.L. Sanghi, and 1.
The State of Maharashtra was later impleaded as a party respondent to the petition.
19 1 f of the Constitution was infringed.
Sen and 1.
The learned Judge also held that the restrictions imposed by the impugned provisions were reasonable and in the interest of the general public and were on that account number within the protection of Art.
The second respondent is an owner of a stable of milch cattle at Andheri within the limits of Greater Bombay.
1019 and 1020 of 1967.
1019 and 1020 of 1967 and respondents Nos.
N. Shroff, for respondents Nos.
1020 of 1967 .
The Ordinance was with the assent of the President replaced by the Assam Acquisition of Land for Flood Control and Prevention of Erosion Act 6 of 1955.
Against that order the State of Maharashtra has preferred this appeal with certificate granted by the High Court.
The first respondent in Appeal No.
1654 of 1966 K. Singhvi, S.C. Agarwala, R.K. Garg, D.P. Singh and Gupta, for the respondents in C.A. No.
and Civil Appeals Nos.
3 and 4 in C.A. No.
19 1 g of the Constitution.
1654 of 1966 is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and carries on, within the limits of Greater Bombay, the business of skinning carcasses of dead animals and utilising the products for industrial uses.
1 and 2 in A. No.
In appeal under the letters patent the High Court modified the order passed by Kantawalla, J., and declared s. 372 g and a part of s. 385 of the Act invalid.
1654 of 1966.
19 1 f g of the Constitution.
Respondents Nos.
The State of Maharashtra and the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay have appealed to this Court.
1654 of 1966 .
