Read Time: 07 minutes

The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a Public Interest Litigation plea filed regarding permission for transportation of meat, liquor, and eggs to the 22 wards of Mathura which have been declared as "Holy Place of Pilgrimage" from other wards for personal consumption, marriages and other ceremonies.

The bench of Justice Ashutosh Srivastava and Justice Pritinker Diwaker found that the petitioner's allegations that State authorities were harassing meat, liquor and egg consumers in these wards of Mathura Vridawan were merely bald and sweeping statements.

Court observed that this restriction has been imposed only with respect to 22 Wards and is not applicable to other Wards of the city.

"Thus, there is no complete ban...No material has been brought on record to substantiate this allegation." Court said.

Court further observed that "it is the prerogative of the Government to declare any place as '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. India is a country of great diversity. It is absolutely essential if we wish to keep our country united to have tolerance and respect for all communities and sects," Court added. 

The elected Parshad of one of the Wards namely Shahida had moved the high court alleging that after the declaration of 22 wards of Mathura Vridawan as 'Holy Place of Pilgrimage', the Food Processing Officer, Food Safety and Drugs Administration, Mathura passed a consequential order whereunder the registration of the shops selling meat and non vegetarian restaurants had been suspended with immediate effect.

She contended that the restriction imposed is violative of Article 19 (1) (g) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India as the authorities are also not permitting the transportation of the restricted materials from other Wards where there is no such restriction for personal consumption or consumption in marriages and other ceremonial functions which restriction is most arbitrary and cannot be permitted.

She apprised the Court that on behalf of the residents of the Wards seeking leave for easy transportation of the restricted item she was constrained to approach the Court for redressal of her grievance.

However, Court found that in her plea, Shahida had neither challenged the Notification issued by the State Government for declaration of the wards as Holy Place of pilgrimage nor the Government Order imposing restrictions on the sale / of meat, eggs, and liquor etc.

Thus, Court held, "In the absence of any challenge to the above Notification and the Government Order, it can safely be presumed that the petitioner is not aggrieved by the same. This Court, therefore, does not deem it appropriate to dwell into the validity of the aforesaid Notification and the Government Order."

Importantly, Court pointed out that "though in the writ petition certain grounds had been taken by the petitioner in relation to violation of the fundamental rights and even violation has been pointed out, but surprisingly no relief was prayed for in the writ petition.

Therefore, Court did not deem it appropriate to comment upon the validity of the State Government Notification and the Government Order and dismissed the PIL. 

Case title - Shahida v State Of U.P. And 3 Others