# [1969] 3 S.C.R. 447

- **Citation:** [1969] 3 S.C.R. 447
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1969-01-30
- **Case number:** Writ Petitions Nos. 295, 362, 365, 443 and 444 of 1968
- **Bench:** J. C. Shah, V. Ramaswami, A. N. Grover
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1969-3-s-c-r-447-4600
- **Pages:** 15

## Headnote

Punjab Cattle Fairs (Regulation) Act (6 of 1968) as amended by
Amending Act 18 of 1968, ss. 2(bb), 4, 15 and 23-0riginal Act without
definition in s. 2(bb) of cattle fair, if vague-Whether Act can be struck
down on.rhe ground of vagueness and eOect of striking down-If Act ceases
to have existence in law-Decision before amendment if res judicata be-
[l1:een parties aft,er amendment-Act creating monopoly in State if violates
Art. !9(l)(b), (d), (/) and (g) of the Constitution-Scope of s. 4--S.
15 if violative of Art. 19(1)(/)-Municipal Committee if citizen-If can
con1plain of violation of Art. 19-Direction regarding property of Municipal Com1nittee aniounting to requisition-JJ violative of Art. 32-Directions regarding atnenities-lf authorised by Act.
Jn the State of Punjab .local authorities and individual owners c:lf land
were holding cattle fairs.
The Punjab Cattle Fairs
(Regulation)
Act,
1967, was passed by the State Legislature in exercise of pawers under entry
28 of List II of VII Schedule to the Constitution, declaring a monapoly
in the State ta hold cattle fairs and prohibiting all local authorities and
individuals from holding cattle fairs at 'any place in the State'.
There
was no definition of the expression 'cattle 'fair' in the Act.
The validity
of the Act was challenged on the ground that
the provisions of the Act
were 'vague and ambiguous\
and the
High
Court, in Mohinder Singh
Sawhney v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1968 Punj. 391, accepted the conten·
tion. The State Legislature thereupon, by Amendment Act 18 of 1968
introduced s. 2(bb) defining the expression 'cattle fair' to mean 'a gathering of more than 25 persons for the purpose of general sale or purchase
of cattle'.
Fair Officers were appointed under s. 4(1) of the Act, and
under s. 4(2) they declared certain areas as fair areas. Some of the areas
so declared belonged to a Municipal Committee in the State. The Municipal Committee, a lessee from the Municipal Committee and some residents
in the State, challenged the Act in this Court on the following grounds :-
(I) Since the Act was struck down in Mohinder Singh Sawlmey's case,
the Act ceased to have any existence in law and could not therefore be
amended;
(2) The order of the High Court in that case operated as res judicata
bet\\1een the parties and could not be enforced without a re-enactment of
the Act:
(3) The Act violated Arts. !9(l)(b), (d), (f) and (g); and
(4) Section 15 c:lf the Act, which authorises the State to call upon a
Panchayat Samiti or a Municipal Committee within
whose
jurisdiction
the fair is held to deposit a prescribed amount in the Cattle Fair Fund to
cover the initial expenses of the fair and compels the local authority to
abide by the directions, was invalid.
H
The Municipal Committee also challenged the demand by the Fair
Officer, asking the Municipal Committee to supply water, electricity and
to make sanitary arrangements and to make the staff articles and offices
of the Municipal Committee available to the Fair Officer.
448
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1969] 3 S.C.R.
HELD : ( i) The Act as originally enacted was not vague.
When the
A
Legislature did not furnish a definition of 'cattle fair' it 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.
(454 C-EJ
But even if it was vague it could not have been struck down on that
ground. The High Court in Mohinder Singh Sawhney's case struck down
B
the Act on the ground of vagueness on the assumption that. the validity of
the Act was liable to be adjudged by the test of 'due process of law'. But
this Court, in A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, [1950] S.C.R. 88, held
that the doctrine of due process has no place in our Constitution. Superior
Courts in India may declare a law
invalid, if the
Legislature
has
no
power to enact the law or if the law violates any
elf the fundamenta

## Text

_Characters 0–39,743 of 42,360. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39743 for what follows._

A
MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, AMRITSAR & ANR.
B
c
D
E
F
G
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
January 30, 1969
[J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.]
Punjab Cattle Fairs (Regulation) Act (6 of 1968) as amended by
Amending Act 18 of 1968, ss. 2(bb), 4, 15 and 23-0riginal Act without
definition in s. 2(bb) of cattle fair, if vague-Whether Act can be struck
down on.rhe ground of vagueness and eOect of striking down-If Act ceases
to have existence in law-Decision before amendment if res judicata be-
[l1:een parties aft,er amendment-Act creating monopoly in State if violates
Art. !9(l)(b), (d), (/) and (g) of the Constitution-Scope of s. 4--S.
15 if violative of Art. 19(1)(/)-Municipal Committee if citizen-If can
con1plain of violation of Art. 19-Direction regarding property of Municipal Com1nittee aniounting to requisition-JJ violative of Art. 32-Directions regarding atnenities-lf authorised by Act.
Jn the State of Punjab .local authorities and individual owners c:lf land
were holding cattle fairs.
The Punjab Cattle Fairs
(Regulation)
Act,
1967, was passed by the State Legislature in exercise of pawers under entry
28 of List II of VII Schedule to the Constitution, declaring a monapoly
in the State ta hold cattle fairs and prohibiting all local authorities and
individuals from holding cattle fairs at 'any place in the State'.
There
was no definition of the expression 'cattle 'fair' in the Act.
The validity
of the Act was challenged on the ground that
the provisions of the Act
were 'vague and ambiguous\
and the
High
Court, in Mohinder Singh
Sawhney v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1968 Punj. 391, accepted the conten·
tion. The State Legislature thereupon, by Amendment Act 18 of 1968
introduced s. 2(bb) defining the expression 'cattle fair' to mean 'a gathering of more than 25 persons for the purpose of general sale or purchase
of cattle'.
Fair Officers were appointed under s. 4(1) of the Act, and
under s. 4(2) they declared certain areas as fair areas. Some of the areas
so declared belonged to a Municipal Committee in the State. The Municipal Committee, a lessee from the Municipal Committee and some residents
in the State, challenged the Act in this Court on the following grounds :-
(I) Since the Act was struck down in Mohinder Singh Sawlmey's case,
the Act ceased to have any existence in law and could not therefore be
amended;
(2) The order of the High Court in that case operated as res judicata
bet\\1een the parties and could not be enforced without a re-enactment of
the Act:
(3) The Act violated Arts. !9(l)(b), (d), (f) and (g); and
(4) Section 15 c:lf the Act, which authorises the State to call upon a
Panchayat Samiti or a Municipal Committee within
whose
jurisdiction
the fair is held to deposit a prescribed amount in the Cattle Fair Fund to
cover the initial expenses of the fair and compels the local authority to
abide by the directions, was invalid.
H
The Municipal Committee also challenged the demand by the Fair
Officer, asking the Municipal Committee to supply water, electricity and
to make sanitary arrangements and to make the staff articles and offices
of the Municipal Committee available to the Fair Officer.
448
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1969] 3 S.C.R.
HELD : ( i) The Act as originally enacted was not vague.
When the
A
Legislature did not furnish a definition of 'cattle fair' it 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.
(454 C-EJ
But even if it was vague it could not have been struck down on that
ground. The High Court in Mohinder Singh Sawhney's case struck down
B
the Act on the ground of vagueness on the assumption that. the validity of
the Act was liable to be adjudged by the test of 'due process of law'. But
this Court, in A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, [1950] S.C.R. 88, held
that the doctrine of due process has no place in our Constitution. Superior
Courts in India may declare a law
invalid, if the
Legislature
has
no
power to enact the law or if the law violates any
elf the fundamental
rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution or is inconsistent with
any constitutional ptovision, but not on the ground that it is vague. There..
C
fore, as a result of the judgment of the High Court the Act did not cease
to have existence in law.
[453 C-D, G; 454 A-BJ
Kehar Singh v. The State of Punjab, (1969) 71 P.'L.R. 24, approved.
(2) The decision in Mohinder· Singh Sawhney's case does not operate
a~ res judicata even in favour of the petitioners in that case.
Its effect
was only that the Act was in law non-existent so long as there was no defi·
D
nition of the expression 'cattle 'fair' in the Act.
But that defect has been ·
remedied by the Amending Act. [454 B-C]
( 3) (a) The Act does not impose unreasonable restrictions upon the
fundamental rights guaranteed under Art. 19(l)(b) and (d). It prohibits
an individual or local authority from arranging a gathering of more than
25 persons for the purpose specified in the definition. The restriction was
E
only for the purpose of making the monopoly effective, and must be regarded as a reasonable restriction within the meaning of els. 19(3) and
(5) upon the freedom of assembly an.cl of free movement. [456 C-E]
(b) The Act is restricted in its scope and the freedoms guaranteed by
Art. 19( I )(f) and (g) are also not infringed.
(D A law which is 'basically and essentially necessary' for creating a
F
State .monopoly arul thereby deprives the citizens of the right to carry on
the same business is not, by virtue of Art. 19(6), open to challenge on
the ground that it infringes the fundamental right guaranteed
by Art.
19(1) (g). In the present case, the primary object elf the Act is to give a
monopoly to the State to hold cattle fairs and as a necessary concomitant
of that monopoly,, holding of cattle fairs by local authorities and individua!S is prchibited.
The law will not also be exposed to attack on the
ground that the right to carry on business is property, for, the validity of
G
restrictions on the right to carry on occupation,
trade or business, or to
practice any profession must be adjudged only in the light of Art. 19(6).
Moreover, the presumption of reasonableness df a statute creating a mono ..
poly in the State applies not only in respect of the right under Art.
19(1)(g) but also under Art. 19(l)(f). [456 E--0; 457 A-CJ
Akadasi Padhan v. State of Orissa, [1963] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 691, followed.
H
State of Bihar'v. Rameshwar Pratap Narain, [1962] 2 S.C:R. 382 and
M. V. P. Ramunni Kurup v. Panchayat Board, Badagara,
A.l.R. 1954
Mad. 754, referred to.
A
B
c
D
E
F
•
G
H
MUNIC. COMMITTEE V. PUNJAB
449
(ii) The prohibition imposed upon
all person• and authorities is in
reopect of only cattle fairs and not in respect elf cattle markets, that is,
places where the business of sale or plirchase is regularly conducted by
private parties and not ao a fair. The Act does not prohibit anyone from
carrying on the business of cattle market on his own land:
[455 E-F;
461 El
When the business is in the nature of a market for saie of sheep and
goats brought by intending sellorli 'for slaughter, such a place cannot be
called a fair.
A person carrying on his business in a cattle market on his
own land need not take out a licence under s. 9 of the Act even though
he was collecting brokerage and was carrying on the business elf a broker,
because, it is only a person carrying on his business
within a fair area,
lJ1wfully declared, that is required to obtain the licence.
[460 F-HJ
(iii) Though the words used in s. 4 .are wide and are capable of the
interpretation that the State could hold a ca!Ue fair at any place, it is implicit in ss. 3 and 4 that the monopoly acquired by the State to hold and
manage cattle fairs is confined to property belonging to the State and
does not extend t0 the property of local authorities or private owners.
[456 A-CJ
A Municipal Committee is not a 'citizen' within the meaning Of Art
19 and therefore, is not entitled to claim protection of any of the fundamental rights under Art. 19. But a direction to make municipal property
available for holding a cattle fair by
the State is a threat to requisition
municipal property without authority of law, ~d is. not a mere direction
to regulate the fair held on behalf of the Municipal Committee. Such a
taking possession of property without payment of compensation as required by Art. 3i(l) must be deemed unauthorised ands. 23, giving the provisions of the Act a paramount operation. notwithstanding anything inconsistent in any other law, will not supersede the constitutional gu:trantee.
[458 E-G]
(4) Under s. 17(d), out of the Cattle Fair Fund, the amount recovered
from a local authority may
be reimbursed
but the provision in s. 15,
authorising the State to call upon a local authority to pay a sum of money
towards the Cattle Fair Fund is an unreasonable deprivation of propect:T
and violates the right under Art. 19(1) (f) and hence is inva)id.
[457
C-E)
Also the demand made by the Fair Officer for assistance of the ~tall.
articles and offices of the Municipality for holding a fair, and the deo1and
for supi)ly of water and electricity and making suitable sanitary arrangements are not warranted by any provision of the Act, and must be declared invalid. [459 A-CJ
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petitions Nos. 295, 362, 365,
443 and 444 of 1968.
Petitions under Art. 3 2 of the Constitution of India for the
enforcement of the fundam~lltal rights.
H. R. Gokhale and Naunit Lal, for the petitioners (in W. P.
No. 295 of 1968).
H. R. Gokhale, Jagjit Singh Chawla, S. K. Mehta and K. L.
Mehta, for the petitioner (in W.P. No. 362 of 1968).
R. K. P. Shankar Dass, Bishambar Lal and H. K. Puri, for th~
petitioners (in W.P. No. 365 of 1968).
450
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1969] 3 S.C.R.
Jagjit Singh Chawla, S. K. Mehta l\llld K. L. Mehta, for tlle
A
petitioners (in W.P. Nos. 443 and 444 of 1968).
Niren De, Attorney-General, V. C. Mahajan and R. N. Sachthey, tor the respondents (in W.P. Nos. 295 and 362 of 1968).
V. C. Mahajan and R. N. Sachthey, for the responde.nts (in
W.P. No. 365 of 1968).
R. N. Sachthey, for the respondents (in W.P. Nos. 443 and
444 of 1968).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Shah, J.
Cattle fairs
are held for the last many
decades
in different parts of the territory of the State of Punjab, by local
authorities and individual owners of land. The person or authority holding the cattle fair provides facilities to cattle owners for
board and lodging and for stabling their cattle generally in consideration of charges including a percentage on the price realised
by sale or purchase of cattle.
The Governor of Punjab with a view to control and regulate
cattle fairs promulgated Ordinance No. 14 of 1967 on November
4, 1967, declaring a monopoly 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. Bys. 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 io appoint Fair Officers for holding,
controlling, managing nnd regulating cattle fairs in a
district.
By sub-s. (2) the Fair Officer is made responsible for making
arrangements in respect of all matters connected with the holding
of a cattle fair and its proper control, management and regulation
'
B
c
D
B
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
'
G
H
MUN!C. COMMITTEE V. PUNJAB (Shah, J.)
451
and has also the power of-(i) defining the fair area; (ii) rescrva·
tion of sites or places for latrines, urina}s, baths, shops, exhibitions,
shows, demonstrations, foot-baths for animals, water supply for
drinking purposes, shelters, green and dry fodder, entertainment
and similar other purposes necessary in connection with the cattle·
fair; (iii) allotment of sites temporarily for commercial or other
purposes in connection with the cattle fair, authorisation of raising of structures on such sites, and fixation of rents for such sites
in the prescribed manner; (iv) arrangements for watch and ward,
lighting, medical first aid, veterinary aid, sanitation, tentage and
other facilities as may be necessary in connection with the cattle
fair; and ( v) construction of temporary offices for the purpose of
collecting taxes and fees imposed and levied in connection with
the cattle fair. The expression "fair area" is defined iin s .. 2 ( d)
as meaning "such area within a district as may be specified by a
fair officer for the purpose of holding a cattle fair". By s. 5 power
is conferred upon the State Government to impose in a fair area
during the continuance of a cattle fair, tolls on vehicles entering
such area for business purposes and octroi duty on goods brought
for sale within such area.
Jurisdiction of the local authorities
to levy taxes and fees in any fair area in connection with the fair
is excluded by s. 6. By s. 8 it is provided that no person shall
sell cattle at a. cattle fair unless the has obtained a registration
certificate in respect of cattle to be sold. Section 9 provides for
licensing of brokers. By s. 15 the State Government is authorised
to direct the Panchayat Samiti or Municipal Committee, in 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 the locai authority
so directed is enjoined to comply with tlte direction. Section 16
provides for the setting up of a Cattle Fair Fund in which all fees,
rent or other sums of money (not being tolls and taxes) received
or realized 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 authoritR_ 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(').
Before the High Court one
of the contentions raised by the
(I) A.I.R. [1968] Punjab 391.
452
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1969] 3 S.C.R.
petitioners was that the provisions of the Act were "vague and ambiguous'', and on that account the Act was u/t;a vires. The Court
accepted that contention.
The Court observed that there was a
distinction between a "cattle market" and a "cattle fair" and since
no definition of "cattle fair" was supplied by the Act it was left
to the executive authorities to determine what a "cattle fair" was
and on that account "the infirmity went to the root of the matter,
and the Act was liable to be struck down in its entirely on the
ground of vagueness, even if some of its provisions were unexceptionable in themselves".
The State Legislature then enacted the Punjab Cattle Fairs
(Regulation) Amendment Act 18 of 1968 which introduced by
s. 2(bb) a definition of the expression "cattle fair" as meaning
"a gathering of more than twenty-five persons for the purpose of
general sale or purchase of cattle". Fair Officers were appointed
by the State Government and they issued notifications declaring
certain areas as "fair areas".
A number of petitions were again moved in the High Court of
Punjab for an order declaring invalid the Act as amended. The
High Court of Punjab dismissed the petitions, upholding the validity of the Act:
Kehar Singh v.
The State of Punjab & Another('). The Court in that case held that the definition of "cattle
fair" was not intended to bring within its compass sales by private
individuals outside fair areas: it was intended only to apply where
in general, people assemble at some place for the purpose of
buying and selling cattle and the number of persons exceeds
twenty-five, and that Act 6 of 1968 as amended by Act 18 of
1968 "does not contravene the provisions of Arts. 19 ( l )( f) &
( g) of the Constitution".
Certain persons interested in conducting cattle fairs have filed
writ petitions in this Court.
Arguments which are common in
all the petitions may first be considered.
We are unable to accept the argument that since the High
Court of Punjab by their judgment in Mohinder Singh Sawhney's
case(') struck down the Act, Act 6 of 1968 had ceased to have
any existence in law, and that, in any event, assuming that the
judgment of the Punjab High Court in Mohinder Singh Sawhne.v's
case(') did not make the Act non-existent, as between the parties
in whose favour the order was passed in the earlier writ
petitions, the order operated as res i.udicata,
and on that
account the Act could not be enforced without re-enactment.
The High Court of Punjab in Mohinder Singh Sawhney's case(')
observed at p. 396 :
(I) (1969) 71 P.L.R. 24.
(2) A.J.R. (19681Punjab391.
A
B
c
D
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
MUNIC. COMMITTEE V. PUNJAB (Shah, /,)
453
" . . . . in our opinion the petitions must 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 II 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 Ill 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(') 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 oi common inteHigence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ
as to its application violates the first essential of due
process of law."
But the rule enunciated by the American Courts has no application under our Constitutional set up.
The rule is regarded as
an essential of the "due process clauses"
incorporated in
the
American Constitution by the 5th & the 14th Amendments. The
Courts in India have no authority to declare a statute invalid on
the ground that it violates the "due process of law". Under our
Constitution, the test of due process of law cannot be applied to
statutes enacted by the Parliament or the State legislatures. This
Court has definitely ruled that the doctrine of "due process or
law" has no place in our Constitutional system:
A. K. Gopailitl
v. The State of Madras('). Kania, C.J., observed (at p. 120J.
"There is considerable authority for the statement
that the Courts are not at liberty to declare an Act void
because in their opinion it is opposed to a spirit supposed
to pervade the Constitution but not expressed in words.
. .
. . it is only in express constitutional provisions
limiting legislative power and controlling the temporary
will of a majority by a permanent and paramoupt law
settled by the deliberate wisdom of the nation that one
(!) 70 L. Etln. 322.
(2) [1950] S.C.R. 88.
'
454
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1969] 3 S.C.R.
can find a safe and solid ground for the authority of
A
Courts of Justice to declare void any legislative enactment."
The order made by the High Court in Mohinder Singh Sawhney's
case(') striking down the Act was passed on the assumption that
the validity of the Act was liable to be adjudged by the test of
"due process of law''.
The Court was plainly in error in so
B
assuming. We are also unable to hold that the previous decision
op:r~tes as res judicata even in favour of the petitioners in whose
peht1ons an order was made by the High Court in the first group
of p:titions. The c:ffect of that decision was only that the Act
was m law, non-existent, so long as there was no definition of
the expression "cattle fair" in the Act.
That defect has been c
1
remedied by the Punjab Act 18 of 1968.
We may hasten to observe, that we are unable to agree that
the Act as originally enacted was unenforceable
even on the
ground of vagueness. It is true that the expression "cattle fair"
was noi defined in the Act.
The Legislature, when it did not
furnish the definition of the expression "cattle fair" must be deemD
ed 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 by the definition of "cattle fair" ins. 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( 2 ) (at p. 707) :
" 'A law relating to' a State monopoly cannot, in
the context [of Art. 19(l)(g)] include all the provisions
contained in the said Jaw whether they have direct relation with the creation of the monopoly or not.
expression should be construed to mean the law relating
to the monopoly in its absolutely essential features. If a
law is passed creating a State monopoly, the Court should
enquire what are the provisions of the said law which
are basically and essentially necessary for creating the
(I) A.l.R. (1968] Punjab 391
(2) [l 963] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 691.
E
F
G
H,
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
MUNIC. COMMITTEE v. PUNJAB (Shah,/.)
455
State monopoly.
It is only those esoential and basic
provisions which are protected by the
latter part of
Art. 19 ( 6). If there are other provisions made by the
Act which are subsidiary, incidental or helpful to the
operation of the monopoly, they do not fall under the
said part and their validity must be judged under the
first part of Art. 19 ( 6) . In other words, the effect of
the amendment made in Art. 19 ( 6) is to protect the
law relating to the creation of monopoly and that means
that it is only the provisions of the law which are integrally and essentially connected with the creation of
the monopoly
that are
protected.
The rest of the
provisions which may be incidental do not fall under
the lattet part of Art. 19(6) and would inevitably have
to satisfy the test of the first part of Art. 19(6)."
The provisions of the Act which seek to monopolise for the State
the right to carry on cattle fairs are protected against the challenge
that they put an unreasonable restriction upon persons carrying
on the occupation of holding cattle fairs.
What is implicit in
the grant of a monopoly to the State is expressly enacted in s.
3 (2) that no other person or authority may conduct a cattle fair
at any place in the State of Punjab.
But the restriction operates
only in respect of cattle fairs and not other trades or occupations
relating to dealings in cattle.
The Act is restricted in its scope:
the prohibition imposed upon all persons and authorities restraining them from holding, controlling
managing
and
regulating
cattle fairs at any place in the State of Punjab extend only to
cattle fairs strictlv so-called, and not to cattle markets.
The
monopoly declared by the Act does not invest the State with
the monopoly to conduct cattle markets, i.e. places where the
business of sale or purchase is regularly conC:ucted by private
parties and not as a fair.
Any attempt made by the Officers of
the State claiming to exercise authority under the Act to prohibit
cattle markets is without authority of law.
The Act also does not invest the State with authority to declare private property of an 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
offic~s. 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 els.
(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.
456
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1969] 3 S.C.R.
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 ir. 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 Constitution. It is
implicit in the provisions of ss. 3 & 4 of the Act that the monopoly acquired by the State to hold and manage cattle fairs may
be held on property belonging to the State and does not extend
to the property of local authorities or private owners.
The contention that the provisions of the Act, and especially
the definition of "cattle fair" in s. 2(bb), impose unreasonable
restrictions upon the fundamental rights guaranteed under Art.
19(1) (b) & (d) has, in our judgment, no substance. The definition of cattle fair in s. (bb) does not infringe the right of citizens
under Art. 19(1) (b) to assemble peaceably and witho.ut arms,
and the right under Ar.t. 19 (!) ( d) to move freely throughout the
territory of India. By the definition clause concourse of twentyfive persons is not prohibited: the Act does not place restrictions
upon the freedom 0f assembly or of free movement either under
cl. (b) or cl. ( d) of Art. 19 (1 ) . The Act only prohibits an
individual or local authority from arranging a gathering of more
than twenty-five persons for the purpose specified in the definition
of "cattle fair".
The restriction for the purpose of making the
monopoly effective must be regarded as reasonable within the
meaning of els. (3) & (5) of Art. 19.
By imposing restrictions upon the right to hold a fair, the
citizens are not deprived of their property, and the
freedom
guaranteed by Art.
19 ( 1 )( f) is not infringed. The primary
object of the Act is to give a monopoly to the State to hold cattle
fairs.
As a necessary concomitant of that monopoly, holding of
cattle fairs by local authorities and individuals is prohibited. The
prohibition flows directly from the assumption of monopoly by
the State and falls within the terms of Art. 19(6) of the Constitution. It is a provision of the law creating monopoly "basically
and essentially necessary" for creating . the State monopoly
to
prevent other persons from conducting the same business.
Our attention was invited to the decision of this Court in State
of Bihar v. Rameshwar Pratap Narain Singh and Others(') and
to a decision of the Madras High Court in Mandivil Vania Pudukudi Ramunni Kurup and Others v. PaT?Chayat Board, Badagara
and Others(') in support of the plea that a right to hold a fair
is property.
But .those cases have no bearing on the question
arising in these petitions.
A law which creates a monopoly to
(1) [1962] 2 S.C.R. 382.
(2) A.LR. [1954] Mad, 754.
c
\,
G
H
MUN!C. COMMITTEE v. PUNJAB (Shah, J.)
457
A
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 will 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
B
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 unuer
Art. 19( I )(f) as well.
C
Section 15 which authorises the State to call upon a Panchayat Samiti or a Municipal Committee, within whose juiisdiction
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
D
deprivation of property. Reasonableness of such a provision was
not set up either in the affidavit or in the arguments before us. It
is true that under s. 17 ( d) out of the Cattle Fair Fund the amount
which has been recovered from a local authority may be reimbursed, but the provision authorising the State to call upon a
local authority to pay a sum of money towards the Cattle Fair
Fund is, in our judgment, unreasonable and must be declared inE _ valid. The learned Attorney-General appearing on behalf of the
State of Punjab did not seek to support the provision.
To sum up, the power which the State Government may exercise. to declare a fair area and to make provision for reservation
of sites, allotment of sites temporarily for commercial or other
purposes, and to arrange for watch and ward and to construct
temporary offices may be exercised only on lands belonging to
the State. No such power may be exercised in respect of lands owned by local authorities or individuals. The monopoly
which is
acquired by the State by s. 3 is a monopoly to hold, control,
manage and regulate a fair and not a cattle market business. An
attempt to prevent persons from
conducting the business
of
cattle markets and from holding, controlling, managing and regulating cattle markets is unauthorised, for by s. 3 private individuals, local authorities and associations
incorporated or not
are prohibited only from holding cattle fairs and not cattle
markets.
In the light of these principles we proceed to examine the
H
.claims1made in the five petitions.
The Fair Officers have not made any declaration of fair areas
which include the lands of the petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos.
458
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1969] 3 S.C.R.
362, 443 & 444 of 1968. In respect of the lands of the petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos. 295 and 365 of 1968 a notification
defining a fair area has been made.
Writ Petition No. 295 of 1968
This petition is filed by the Municipal Committee, Amritsar.
By letter dated August 26, 1968, the Deputy Commissioner,
Amritsar, informed the Municipal Committee that a cattle fair was
intended to be held as scheduled on the "Cattle Fair Ground
(Mal Mandi)", under the management of the District Fair Officer, and the Municipal Committee was
required to arrange
to
supply water and electricity, to make suitable sanitary arrange·
ments, to deposit the income from Baisakhi Cattle Fair in Government Treasury in Cattle Fair Fund and to deliver the record in
that behalf to the Fair Officer.
The Sectjon 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) ~ct, 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 Ttilui 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 .associations. A direction to make Municipal property available for holding a cattle fair by the State is a threat to
requisition municipal property without authority of law and without payment of compensation, and must be deemed unauthorised.
Section 23 of the Act which gives the provisions of the Act a
paramount
operation,
notwithstanding
anything
inconsistent
therewith contained in any other Jaw for the time being in force
wiH not supersede a constitutional guarantee.
It was argued on behalf of the State that by the order only
directions to control, manage and regulate the fair held on behalf
of the Municipal Committee were intended to be given. But that
is not the effect of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner.
The Deputy Commissioner informed the Municipal Committee
that possession of its land should be handed over so that the State
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
MUN!C. COMMITTEE v. PUNJAB (Shah, J.)
459
may be able to hold the fair under the provisions of the Punjab
Cattle Fairs (Regulation) Act, 1967. Section 3(1) is intended
only to provide for a monopoly in the State to hold cattle fairs
and to control, manage and regulate such fairs.
The demand
made by the Fair Officer asking the Municipal Committee to sup·
ply water, electricity and to make sanitary arrangements and make
the staff, articles and offices of the Municipal Committee avail.able
to the Fair Officer is not warranted by any provision of the Act.
The notification issued by the Fair Officer defining the fair area
inclusive of the land of Mal Mandi is, therefore, unauthorised.
The demand made by the Fair Officer for assistance of the "staff,
articles and offices of the Municipality" for holding the fair and
the demand for supply of water and electricity and making suitable sanitary arrangements is also uncalled for and unauthorised.
The directions must, therefore, be declared invalid.
Writ Petition No. 362 of 1968
The petitioner is Sardara Singh. He claims that he is in lawful possession of a piece of land situated in village Hussainpur,
Tahsil and District Rupar (Punjab), and that for the last ten
years he holds a cattle market on that piece of land from the first
to the fourth of every month. He also asserted that he has been
holding cattle markets on the lands in his lawful possession at
Kurali, Anandpur Saheb, Marunda (District Rupar) within the
State of Punjab.
According to the petitioner, for the purpose
of holding cattk markets on the lands in his occupation at Hussain·
pur, 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 holdin~ 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.
Writ Petition No. 365 of 1968
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 Bakar
Mandi". 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 prospective seJ.Jers and
460
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1969] 3 S.C.R.
. has also constructed some rooms where he provides board and
lodging to the merchants who come to Adda Bakar Mandi in
connection with their business. He has set out in his petition the
manner in which the business is carried on and the charges made
. by him. It may be sufficient to mention that the petitioner claims
that he conducts a cattle market and not a cattle fair.
The Fair Officer issued a declaration under s. 4(2) (i) read
withs. 2(d) of the Punjab Cattle Fairs (Regulation) Act, 1967,
specifying "2 Kilometres from the main building situated in the
Cattle Fair Ground at Bakar Mandi outside Lahori Gate" as a
fair area for the purpose of controlling, managing, regulating and
holding the Cattle Fair, Amritsar, at Bakar Mandi outside Lahori
Gate.
The Fair Officer also address.ed a letter to the petitioner
dated October 25, 1968, informing him that the Punjab Government had exclusively undertaken the work of holding, managing,
controlling and supervising the Cattle Fairs under s. 3 of the
Punjab Cattle Fairs (Regulation) Act, 1967, and that the petitioner who was carrying on the business of holding a cattle fair
should stop running the Bakar Mandi. The Fair Officer informed
the petitioner that the ground of the Bakar Mandi had already
been specified as fair area by him and on. that account the petitioner was prohibited to work as commission agent, unless he
got a broker's licence under the Act.
The land in respect of which the declaration has been made
as fair area is the land of the Municipal Committee, of which
under a licence or a lease the petitioner is in possession.
For
reasons which we have already set out, the Government of Punjab
is not competent to declare the land of the Bakar Mandi a fair
area. The notification declaring the Bakar Mandi as fair area is,
therefore, invalid.
By s.