Case: Municipal Committee, Amritsar &amp; Anr Vs. State Of Punjab &amp; Ors

1. 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.2. 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. By Section 3 of the Act it isThe 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 or 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 ofSingh Sawhney v. State of Punjab, AIR 1968 PunjThe state Legislature then enacted the Punjab Cattle Fairs (Regulation) Amendment Act 18 of 1968 which introduced by Section 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".5. 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. State of Punjab, (1969) 71 Pun LR 24. The Court in that case held that the definition of "cattle fail 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 Art. 19 (1) (f) and (g) of the Constitution".Writ Petition No. 362 of 196822. The petitioner is Sardara Singh. He claims that be is in lawful possession of a piece of land situated in village Hussainpur, Tahsil and Dist. Rupar Punjab) and that for the last ten years be holds a cattle market on that piece of land from the first to the fourth of every month. He also asserted that he had 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 cattle markets on the lands in his occupation at Hussainpur, 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 thePetition No. 365 of 196823. 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 sellers and has so constructed some rooms where he provides board and lodging to the merchants who come to the 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.Writ Petitions Nos. 443 and 444 of 196829. The petitioners in these petitions are Narain Singh and another. They claim that they are in "legal possession" of different pieces of land taken on 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.

Reasoning: 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 the statutes enacted by the Parliament or the State legislatures. This Court has definitely ruled that the doctrine of "due process of law" has no place in our Constitutional system: A. K. Gopalan v. The State of Madras, 1950 SCR 88  =(AIR 1950 SC 27  ). Kania, C. J., observed (at p. 120 of SCR)=(at p. 42 ofe contention that the provisions of the Act, and especially the definition of cattle fair" in Section 2 (bb), impose unreasonable restrictions upon the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (b) and. 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,a person carrying on his business within the fair area lawfully declared is required to obtain a licence, but not in respect of his business in a cattle market.28. The petition filed by Jagtar Singh must, therefore, be allowed and the order declaring the petitioners land as fair area and the intimation calling upon him to stop his business of cattle market ist 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 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 supply water, electricity and to make sanitary arrangements and make the staff, articles and offices of the Municipal Committee available to the Fair Officer is not warranted by any provision of the Act. The notification issue 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.