JUDGMENT Kamleshwar Nath, J. - This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to strike down certain bye-laws framed by opposite party No. 2 Municipal Board Mohammadi, district Kheri and for a mandamus to the opposite parties to allow slaughter of animals in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955. 2. The petitioner carries on the profession of butchery in town Mohammadi within the limits of the Municipal Board of Mohammadi. The Municipal Board framed bye-laws contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition t under Section 298 (2) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, with the approval of opposite party No. 3 the Commissioner of Lucknow Division; the bye laws are published in U.P. Gazette Notification No. 2039/21-M-47(75-76)-21 dated 19.3.1977. At the time of the hearing of this writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner confined . his attack to bye-law Nos. 5 and 9 which run as follows: " 5- dksbZ O;fDr uxj ikfydk eksgEenh dh lhek ds Hkhrj vius O;fDrxr mi;ksx] forj.k vFkok fodz; ds fy;s vFkok fdlh Hkh vU; vko';drk ds fy;s xk;] cSy] lkWaM] cNM+k] cfN;k ;k fdlh nw/k nsrs gq, vFkok fdlh ,sls i'kq dk o/k] tks xHkZ dh voLFkk esa gks ;k gy tksrus ;k xkM+h pykus esa vk ldrk gks] ugha dj ldrk gSA 9- iwoksZDr fu'p; le; ,oa LFkku ij fujh{k.k djus okys vf/kdkjh dks vko';d gksxk fd og vius lkeus mifLFkr fd;s x;s i'kq dk fujh{k.k djsa vkSj bl ckr dk lek/kku dj ys fd og i'kq%& 1- mi fu;e 5 ds vuqlkj voS/; ugha gSA 2- euq"; ds Hkkstu ds fy;s mi;qDr gSA 3- jksxh vFkok xeZ dh voLFkk esa ugha gSA 4- cgqr nqcZy vFkok cw<+k ugha gSA dksbZ Hkh i'kq tks fdlh nq?kZVuk ds dkj.k dk;Z djus esa vleFkZ gks x;k gS dsoy blh vk/kkj ij vuqi;qDr ugha Bgjk;k tk;sxkA " 3. It will be seen that Prohibition against slaughter applies, under bye-law 5 to cow, bullock. bull, heifer cNM+k calf or any milk yielding or pregnant animal or any other animal which Is fit to be used for drawing ploughs or carts. The learned counsel does not dispute the validity of this prohibition so far as it relates to cows, here heifer and calf. Indeed, It was settled by the Supreme Court as far back as in the case of Mohd. The learned counsel does not dispute the validity of this prohibition so far as it relates to cows, here heifer and calf. Indeed, It was settled by the Supreme Court as far back as in the case of Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar, AIR 1958 SC 731 that the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 in so far as it prohibits the slaughter of cows of all ages, and calves of cows and calves of buffaloes (male and female) is valid. The decision also lays down that a prohibition of slaughter of she-buffaloes, breeding bulls and working bullocks (cattle as well as buffaloes) as long as they are milch and draught cattle is valid. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the total ban on I slaughter of bullock and bulls is not reasonable as it would offend the petitioner's Fundamental Rights under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution and would not serve any public interest after they have ceased to be capable of sworking as draught animals or of breeding. This contention is also supported by the above mentioned decision in the case of Mohd. Hanif Quareshi (supra), followed by this Court in the case of Babu v. Municipal Board Kheri, AIR 1976 All 326 . Usefulness and age of the cattle sought to be slaughtered would be reasonable criteria for classification of the cattle; the ban imposed by bye-law 5 on the slaughter of bullocks and bulls must be confined therefore to such of them as are not capable of being used for drawing ploughs or carts or for breeding respectively. 5. The expression "any milk yielding animal" in bye-law 5 must be interpreted in its normal sense, namely, cattle which yield milk for human consumption, for example, she-buffalo, he-goat. Similarly, the expression "any pregnant animal" in the bye-law must be confined to the cattle of ordinary use by human beings, it cannot be extended to every animal of every variety. Lastly, the expression "animals capable of being used for drawing ploughs or carts" must be interpreted to signify such animals as are normally used for the purpose of drawing carts or ploughs by human beings, having regard to the normal pursuits of the local people, it cannot be extended to every animal of every variety. 6. Lastly, the expression "animals capable of being used for drawing ploughs or carts" must be interpreted to signify such animals as are normally used for the purpose of drawing carts or ploughs by human beings, having regard to the normal pursuits of the local people, it cannot be extended to every animal of every variety. 6. It will also be noticed that the ban contained In bye-laws does not apply to he-goats, sheep, pigs, stags, rams as none of them would belong to the category of a milk-yielding, draught, or breeding cattle. 7. These are all the points which relate to bye-law No. 5. 8. Regarding bye-law No. 9, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that they have conferred unfettered discretion upon the inspecting authorities for according permission for slaughter of a particular animal. We are of the opinion that conditions 1 to 3 set-forth in bye-law 9 are specific and do not constitute an unfettered or unguided exercise of discretion. However, we find that condition No. 4 is too vague and does leave an unfettered discretion. The expression "very weak" is not capable of a definite connotation. If this weakness is a result of disease, it could be taken care of under condition No. 3; if weakness does not flow from any disease which could render the flesh to be unhygienic for human consumption, slaughter should not be prohibited for that reason alone. Similarly, the expression "old age" is too vague. It will appear from the decision in the case of Abdul Hakim Ouraishi v. State of Bihar, AIR 1961 SC 448 that bullocks, bulls and buffaloes are no longer useful for breeding, draught and other purposes after 15 years of age. It would be unreasonable therefore to leave it at the discretion of the inspecting authority to determine as to what should be the appropriate age for the slaughter of any of these cattle. Perhaps the age factor has not be considered in isolation; it must be linked with the usefulness of the animal. It would be unreasonable therefore to leave it at the discretion of the inspecting authority to determine as to what should be the appropriate age for the slaughter of any of these cattle. Perhaps the age factor has not be considered in isolation; it must be linked with the usefulness of the animal. The element of age by itself bears an angle of compassion; and it is one of the fundamental duties of every citizen of India under Article 51-A clause (g) of the Constitution "to have compassion for living creatures." It is ultimately for the Municipal Board to consider the factor of age coupled with the other factors, including usefulness, in respect of animals sought to be slaughtered to determine whether the animal ought to be slaughtered or not. All that can be said presently, is that condition No. 4 as it stands, is quite vague and leaves unfettered discretion to the inspecting authority and, therefore, deserves to be struck down. 9. The last paragraph of bye-law 9 says that any animal which has become unfit for any service on account of any accident, shall not be declared to be unsuitable for slaughter merely for that reason. In other words, an animal which has become unfit for any service on account of an accident, may be slaughtered, if there is no other reason on account of which it ought not to be slaughtered. This condition is quite reasonable and deserves to be sustained. 10. These are all the points urged before us In this writ petition. The writ petition is allowed In part. We quash clause (4) of bye-law No. 9 and, subject to the interpretation and the scope of the Impugned bye-laws as set-forth above, we dispose of this writ petition accordingly. All the other reliefs claimed are refused. Parties shall bear their costs.