Express News Service
LUCKNOW: While dismissing a public interest litigation (PIL) alleging harassment of meat, liquor and egg consumers by the state authorities in 22 wards of Mathura, Vrindavan which were notified as ‘holy place of pilgrimage’, Allahabad High Court observed that it was essential to have tolerance and respect for all communities.
The PIL, filed by one Shaida of Mathura district, also alleged harassment in transportation of meat and liquor in the notified wards. It may be recalled that the Uttar Pradesh government had notified 22 wards of Mathura Vrindavan Nagar Nigam as “holy place of pilgrimage” through a government order dated September 10, 2021.
Thereafter, a consequential order was also passed by the food processing officer, Food Safety and Drugs Administration, Mathura, suspending the registration of the shops selling meat and non-vegetarian restaurants with immediate effect in the aforesaid 22 wards on September 11, 2021.
While hearing the petition, a division bench, comprising Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava, observed: “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 persons residing in the aforesaid wards, notified as ‘holy place of pilgrimage’, are being deprived of their choice of meals.
She had also claimed the residents were deprived of practicing the business for their livelihood.
The petitioner had claimed in her plea that the government notification amounted to violation of Article 19 (1) (G) of the Constitution which provided freedom to practice any profession, or any occupation, trade or business and also Article 21 which provided protection of life and personal liberty.
The PIL alleged that the authorities were also not permitting the transportation ofthe restricted materials from other wards calling the restriction most arbitrary.
The court observed that the petitioner’s allegations of harassment of meat, liquor and egg consumers in those wards of Mathura Vridawan were sweeping statements with no material brought on record to substantiate them.
The court rejected the plea and said 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 added.
Appearing on behalf of the state government, additional advocate general (AAG), Manish Goyal, submitted that Mathura and Vrindavan were prominent places having great historical and religious importance by virtue of being the birth place and ‘kreeda sthal’ (play ground) of Lord Krishna.
The state government with a view to maintain the historical, religious, tourism importance of the placeand its sanctity issued the aforesaid notification dated September 10, 2021 and government order dated September 11, 2021.
Apart from these 22 wards, there existed no such restriction, he contended. The AAG also referred to the reasonable restrictions in respect of Rishikesh municipality which were upheld in the case of Darshan Kumar and others versus the State of UP.
The decision was affirmed by the apex court in the case of Om Prakash and others versus State of UP and others reported in 2004 (3) SCC 402.
