TMI Blog1969 (1) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opoly 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. 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 holdin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ized 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 The Act, however, as originally enacted contained no definition of the expression cattle fair .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(A.I.R. [1968] Punjab 391) Before the High Court one of the contentions raised by the 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 n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 unexceptionable 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 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 (70 L. Edn. 322) 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 intelli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 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 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 ([1963] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 691) (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. . ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 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 Constit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A law which creates a monopoly to 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 Panchayat 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... air 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 controlling, 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 ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainpur, 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. 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 pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ir 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. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
