Express News Service
LUCKNOW: While dismissing a public curiosity litigation (PIL) alleging harassment of meat, liquor and egg customers by the state authorities in 22 wards of Mathura, Vrindavan which had been notified as ‘holy place of pilgrimage’, Allahabad High Court noticed that it was important to have tolerance and respect for all communities.
The PIL, filed by one Shaida of Mathura district, additionally alleged harassment in transportation of meat and liquor within the notified wards. It could also be recalled that the Uttar Pradesh authorities had notified 22 wards of Mathura Vrindavan Nagar Nigam as “holy place of pilgrimage” by means of a authorities order dated September 10, 2021.
Thereafter, a consequential order was additionally handed by the meals processing officer, Food Safety and Drugs Administration, Mathura, suspending the registration of the outlets promoting meat and non-vegetarian eating places with instant impact within the aforesaid 22 wards on September 11, 2021.
While listening to the petition, a division bench, comprising Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava, noticed: “India is a country of great diversity. It is absolutely essential to have tolerance and respect for all communities and sects if we wish to keep our country united. It was due to the wisdom of our founding fathers that we have a Constitution which is secular in character and caters to all communities, sects, lingual and ethnic groups, etc., co-existing in the country. It is the Constitution of India which is keeping us together despite our tremendous diversity because the Constitution gives equal respect to all communities, sects, lingual and ethnic groups, etc.”
However, the petitioner had claimed in her plea that on account of the restrictions imposed by the state authorities, non-vegetarian individuals residing within the aforesaid wards, notified as ‘holy place of pilgrimage’, are being disadvantaged of their selection of meals.
She had additionally claimed the residents had been disadvantaged of practising the enterprise for his or her livelihood.
The petitioner had claimed in her plea that the federal government notification amounted to violation of Article 19 (1) (G) of the Constitution which supplied freedom to follow any career, or any occupation, commerce or enterprise and likewise Article 21 which supplied safety of life and private liberty.
The PIL alleged that the authorities had been additionally not allowing the transportation ofthe restricted supplies from different wards calling the restriction most arbitrary.
The court docket noticed that the petitioner’s allegations of harassment of meat, liquor and egg customers in these wards of Mathura Vridawan had been sweeping statements with no materials introduced on report to substantiate them.
The court docket rejected the plea and mentioned in its order dated March 28: “The notification dated 10.9.2021 merely declares 22 wards of the Nagar Nigam Mathura-Vrindavan to be ‘holy place of pilgrimage’. The petitioner cannot be said to have any grievance against the same. We also do not find any clear violation of any constitutional provision by the said notification.”
“It is the prerogative of the government to declare any place as a ‘holy place of pilgrimage’. Mere declaration of any particular place as ‘holy place of pilgrimage’ does not mean that any restriction has been imposed and the said act is illegal. We are of the opinion that it is the privilege of the state to do so,” the court docket added.
Appearing on behalf of the state authorities, further advocate basic (AAG), Manish Goyal, submitted that Mathura and Vrindavan had been distinguished locations having nice historic and non secular significance by advantage of being the beginning place and ‘kreeda sthal’ (play floor) of Lord Krishna.
The state authorities with a view to take care of the historic, non secular, tourism significance of the place
and its sanctity issued the aforesaid notification dated September 10, 2021 and authorities order dated September 11, 2021.
Apart from these 22 wards, there existed no such restriction, he contended. The AAG additionally referred to the cheap restrictions in respect of Rishikesh municipality which had been upheld within the case of Darshan Kumar and others versus the State of UP.
The resolution was affirmed by the apex court docket within the case of Om Prakash and others versus State of UP and others reported in 2004 (3) SCC 402.
