State of West Bengal v. Dwarika Rai — 1987 DIGILAW 234 (CAL)

Judgment : Ganguly, J. : This appeal has been preferred against the order passed on 27.3.87 disposing of finally the Matter No. 1369 of 1986. The matter arose out of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by Dwarika Rai & three others who happen to be the respondent-petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 in this appeal. 2. Admittedly thirty eight heads of cattle not licensed under the provisions of the W.B. Cattle Licencing Act, 1959 as amanded by the W.B. Cattle Licensing (Amendment) Act, 1984 - were seized on 2.8.86 under the provisions of section 3 of the said Act as they were found inside the Calcutta Municipal Corporation area which has been declared as a prohibited area under section 9(1) of the said Act. It is not very material whether the seizure was made near the railway siding near the Bengal Pottery as claimed by the respondent-petitioner or from a khatal situated at 25A, Radhanath Choudhury Road under Entally Police Station as asserted by the State-appellant, since both the places are situated-within the prohibited area of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation area. Be that as it may, it appears that since sometime after their seizure the seized cattle have been kept at the cattle Re-settling project area at Ganganagar within the district of 24-Parganas. 3. On 18.8.86 the respondent-petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution, whereby they challenged the vires of the W. B. Cattle Licensing (Amendment) Act, 1984 (W. B. Act, XXXVI of 1984) and particularly section 4 of the said Act which has replaced the section 11 of the Principal Act with a new section and they challenged also the application of the said Act. An order of injunction was also sought for restraining the State-appellant from giving effect to the provisions of the said Act and interfering with the respondent-petitioner right to carryon milk trade within the Calcutta Municipal Corporation area. A prayer was also made for an interim order directing the State-appellants to return the aforementioned thirty eight heads of seized cattle to the respondents-petitioner Nos. 1 to 4. 4. It appears that several orders were passed by the learned Judge after the filing of the above writ petition as a result of which the respondent-petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 have been feeding the seized cattle at Ganganagar and taking away their milk. 5. 1 to 4. 4. It appears that several orders were passed by the learned Judge after the filing of the above writ petition as a result of which the respondent-petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 have been feeding the seized cattle at Ganganagar and taking away their milk. 5. Upon hearing both the sides on merits our learned brother A. K. Sengupta, J. passed the impugned order on 27.3.87 whereby he disposed of the matter finally. The learned Judge did not decide if the aforementioned W.R. Cattle Licensing (Amendment) Act, 1984 was intra vires or not. He took into his consideration that a few heads of cattle had died during their detention at Ganganagar and furtheras reported to him from the side of the respondent- petitioners that on a few earlier occasions the Appellant State Authorities had permitted the owners to take away the seized cattle and he passed the aforementioned order the selient features of which are the following: -- "The respondent petitioners shall pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the Milk Commissioner towards the costs of protection of the cattle in question. Thereafter the appellant State satisfying as to the ownership of the cattle and putting identification mark on the cattle as per W.B. Cattle Licensing Rules, 1985, shall release the .seized cattle to the petitioners-respondents who under the supervision of an officer of the State Government shall remove the said cattle from the prohibited area and take them by trucks to Bihar U.P. as the case may be. If any of the said cattle is again brought inside the prohibited area the appellant-State will be at liberty to proceed against the petitioners-respondents according to the provisions of the amended W.B. Cattle Licensing Act." 6. This is the order appealed against. 7. It is urged from the side of the State-appellant that the above order is contrary to the provisions of W.B. Cattle Licensing Act as amended by the Amendment Act of 1984. 8. The State-appellants have taken action in the present case under the amended section 11 of the Act which lays down the procedure regarding seizure, forfeiture etc. It is the provisions of this section mainly which the respondent-petitioners have challenged in their writ petition before the writ court. It becomes necessary, therefore, to consider the provisions of the said section and other provisions of the Amendment Act. 9. It is the provisions of this section mainly which the respondent-petitioners have challenged in their writ petition before the writ court. It becomes necessary, therefore, to consider the provisions of the said section and other provisions of the Amendment Act. 9. The amended section 11 authorises the Licensing Authority or any officer authorised by him or any police officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector having reason to believe that provision of the aforementioned Act has been contravened in respect of any cattle or article used for running a khatal to seize such cattle or article. After seizure the said authority or officer is to submit a report or the seizure to the Officer-in-Charge of the local Police Station. After making arrangement for the custody and maintenance of the cattle or the articles seized, the said Authority or officer has to submit a detailed report about the seizure to the Authorised Officer having jurisdiction over the area. The Authorised Officer may direct the production of the seized cattle or the article before him. If he is satisfied that there has been contravention of the provisions of this Act in respect of the cattle or the article seized, he may order forfeiture of such cattle and 'or article after giving notice upon the owner of the seized cattle article informing him the grounds on which forfeiture of the cattle or the article is proposed and after giving him an opportunity of ma1cing a representation in writing against the grounds of forfeiture and after also giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. For avoiding imminent danger to the seized cattle or the article the Authorised Officer may pass orders for their custody in a Government Firm or for their sale by public auction and for deposit of the sale proceeds in a Government Treasury. The State Government shall appoint an officer not below the rank of a District Judge as the Appellate Officer to hear appeal against the order of forfeiture made by the authorised officer and any person aggrieved by an order of forfeiture made by the said officer may, prefer an appeal to the Appellate Officer who after giving an opportunity to the appellant to be heard, shall pass an order as he may think fit confirming, modifying or annulling the order appealed against. Where an appeal is modified or annulled by the Appellate Officer or where any prosecution is instituted for the contravention of the provisions of the Act in respect of which an order of forfeiture has been made, the person concerned is acquitted, the cattle and the article seized are to be returned to the owner or the person from whom they were seized and where this is not possible such owner or person are to be entitled to the recovery of the sale proceeds of such cattle and article lying deposited in the Government Treasury. 10. Fault has been found from the side of the respondent-petitioner with regard to the period of detention of the cattle in between the time of their seizure and the conclusion of the forfeiture proceeding upto the appeal stage. It is urged that the cattle are the only means of livelihood of the respondent-petitioners and that such detention which may be prolonged amounts to confiscation of the cattle for the entire interim period and that it amounts to an unreasonable restriction on their right to make a living and hence ultra vires Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution not seved by Clause (6) of the said Article. Attention is drawn in this connection to section 457 of the Cr. P. C. and section 5 0 of the Calcutta Municipal Act and reference has also been made to a number of decisions of the Supreme Court and other High Courts. 11. It is urged on the other hand from the side of the Appellant-State that under the un-amended Act which do not contemplate the Authorised Officer the seized cattle had to be produced before the Magistrate of the area who could pass any order for their interim custody and maintenance vide section 11(3) of the un-amended Act. The owner used to furnish bond to the Magistrate and take away the cattle and thereafter take them back to the khatal from where they were seized and carry on business in an unauthorised manner as before though under a different name, thus defeating the very purpose for which the Act was made. It is to obviate these that the Amending Act of 1984 was enacted by the State Legislature. It is contended that under the Amended Act it is the Authorised Officer who can now pass order for the custody of the seized cattle. It is to obviate these that the Amending Act of 1984 was enacted by the State Legislature. It is contended that under the Amended Act it is the Authorised Officer who can now pass order for the custody of the seized cattle. It is urged that if in violation of the Amended Act the cattle are released to their owners the very purpose for which the prior Act was enacted will be defeated and as previously the owner will again bring the cattle back to the prohibited territory and carryon their prohibited trade in milk as before. 12. Thus it is urged from the side of the State-appellant that the Amendment Act of 1984 had to be enacted for a successful operation of the Principal Act and further that since the Principal Act together with its object has already been adjudged intra vires the Constitution vide in (1) Kala Miah v. S. C. Roy, AIR 1964 Calcutta 409 the provisions of the amended Act should also be considered to be intra vires. 13. Now, there can not be any doubt that the detention of the cattle after the seizure which may continue till the end of the proceedings before the Authorised Officer ant the Appellate Authority may prevent the owners from sellings the milk of their seized cattle. The question is if the situation will be covered by clause (6) of Article 19 of the Constitution. That clause permits imposition of (1) reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by Article 19(1)(g) but only (2) in the interest of general public. Does the impugned Act pass the two tests? 14. The Amendment Act has been enacted for carrying into effect the object of the Principal Act. The principal was enacted to regulate the keeping of cattle in urban areas for (i) better regulation of the condition under which milch cows and buffaloes should be kept in calcutta or within any other Municipality and (ii) prohibiting the keeping of Milch animals without license in Calcutta and its suburbs and also in any other urban areas. The principal was enacted to regulate the keeping of cattle in urban areas for (i) better regulation of the condition under which milch cows and buffaloes should be kept in calcutta or within any other Municipality and (ii) prohibiting the keeping of Milch animals without license in Calcutta and its suburbs and also in any other urban areas. The object which the Act had in view was to do away with the unhygienic and insapitary condition in which cattle were kept in the khatals in Calcutta and other towns which very often (1) proved breeding ground for various diseases like small pox and cholera and (2) led to contamination of the milk of the animals kept there. 15. These objects were considered by D.N. Sinha, J. as His Lordship then was, in Kala Miah v. S.C. Roy as reported in AIR 1964 Cal 409 . Recalling the circumstances which led to the passing of the Principal Act his Lordship observed that the insanitary khatals in which cattle were kept in Calcutta constituted a breeding place for infections diseases and that if the State enacted a law to remedy such a scandalous state of affair for improving the health and sanitation of the city, it could not be said that it Was doing something which was in excess of its legislative powers. We do not find any reason for deviating from these views. 16. True in that case what fell for decision was if the Act was hit by Article 301 of the Constitution. But the above observations which were made in a ganeral way apply to the facts of this case too. Since the Principal Act was enacted in the interest of the general public, the Amendment Act also must he said to hive been enacted in the interest of the general public too since it was enacted for achieving the object of the Principal Act. 17. Can the restriction complained of from the side of the respondents-petitioners be described as reasonable? A restriction may be considered as reasonable if its imposition becomes absolutely necessary for carrying into effect the purpose of the Act. Thus it has been said that in order to be reasonable, the restriction must have a reasonable relation to the object which the legislation seeks to achieve, and must not go in excess of that object. A restriction may be considered as reasonable if its imposition becomes absolutely necessary for carrying into effect the purpose of the Act. Thus it has been said that in order to be reasonable, the restriction must have a reasonable relation to the object which the legislation seeks to achieve, and must not go in excess of that object. The same has also been held in (2) Pathumma v. State of Kerala, AIR 1978 SC 771 and (3) Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1951 SC 118 . We have already seen what led the State to enact the Amendment Act. The un-amended Principal Act failed to achieve its purpose since after seizure the owners used to bring the cattle back to the prohibited area after getting them released on bonds given to the Magistrates and carryon their business as before. The Amendment Act will make it impossible for them to do that in case the Authorised Officer in exercise of the powers conferred on him by section 11(6) of the Amended Act detains the cattle in a Government Farm till the disposal of the proceeding upto the Appellate Stage. In that view of the matter the restrictions sought to be imposed by the Amendment Act must be considered as reasonable notwithstanding that its operation may affect the respondents-petitioners harshly. 18. The other provisions of the Amendment Act not really challenged have also been enacted for doing away with the deficiencies which made it impossible for the Principal Act to be enforced in an effective way. Thus section 2 defines "Authorised Officer" and "Khatal", section 3 which amends section 4(1) of the Principal Act obliges a householder licensee of class A to consume the entire milk of the cattle kept by him in his own-premises by himself or members of his family or his agent and does a way with his right under the un-amended section to sell surplus milk not exceeding five seers on any day. Section 5 which amends section 12 of the Principal Act provides punishment for the holder of a class, A licenses who sells milk in any urban area, Increases the quantum of punishment provided in clause VII of the said section and makes every offence under the Act cognizable and non-bailable. Presumably there is nothing uoconstitutional about these provisions of the Amendment Act. 19. So far as section 457 of the Cr. Presumably there is nothing uoconstitutional about these provisions of the Amendment Act. 19. So far as section 457 of the Cr. P.C. is concerned it covers such property as have been seized under Section 102 of the Cr. P.C. but not forwarded to the court. With regard to such property the Magistrate may make such order as be thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property or the delivary of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof". The situation covered by section 457 Cr. P.C. is very much different from the situation covered by the impugned Act. The property covered by section 457 presumably, lire such are not likely to or which cannot be used for committing a crime, such as, broken doors of a house raided by decoits. Under the impugned Act, the seized cattle are all important since it is with regard to them that the provisions of the Act are violated. 20. Section 520 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act has also a different object in view and it is because of this that it permits release of the seized animal etc, to the rightful claimant on payment of costs incurred by the Corporation. Section 420 of the Calcutta Municipal Act cannot, therefore, be invoked for finding fault with the Cattle Licensing Act. 21. In support of his submission that detention of the seized animals pending conclusion of proceedings is ultra vires, Mr. Chatterjee, learned Advocate on behalf the writ petitioner respondents, had placed strong reliance upon the Division Bench decision of the Madras High Court in the case of (4) D. Shanthalakshmi and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, AIR 1983 Mad 232 . At this stage we may observe that Mr. Chatterjee did not advance the extreme contention that power to seize the articles or animals in respect of which the offence has been suspected to have committed is unreasonable. Both under the general law, i.e., Criminal Procedure Code and under the Special law provision for search, seizure and taking into interim custody is almost a standard feature. Therefore, a provision for search and seizure of articles or animals in respect of which offence or offences suspected to have been committed may be in aid of the provision, if any, for confiscation of the said articles or animals. Therefore, a provision for search and seizure of articles or animals in respect of which offence or offences suspected to have been committed may be in aid of the provision, if any, for confiscation of the said articles or animals. An order for confiscation is to be mode in consonance with the principles of natural justice. In fact, the West Bengal Cattle Licensing Act provides for hearing before an order for confiscation of the seized cattle may be made. Existence of power of seizure and taking into custody of the unlicensed cattle found in a notified area cannot be considered unreasonable or arbitrary. Mr. Chatterjee submitted that adjudication by the Authorised Officer under sub-section (4) read with sub-section (5) of section 11 of the West Bengal Cattle Licensing Act (as substituted by section 4 of the West Bengal Cattle Licensing Amendment Act, 1984) may take some time. In the meantime the licensing authority under substituted sub-section (1) of section 11 of the Principal Act is required to arrange for the custody and maintenance of the cattle and article seized (vide sub-section (3) of section 11 of the Act). A safeguard has been provided for persons from whom such seizure might ha\e been made by requiring the licensing authority or the officer or any other officer who had seized the cattle to report under section 11(3) of the Act and to the authorised officer having jurisdiction. If in a given case the officer who seized the cattle under section 11 (1) of the Act dose not within a reasonable time report to the authorised officer, the person from whom the cattle had been seized may take appropriate steps for return of his seized cattle. In case it is expedient for avoiding imminent danger of the cattle or the article seized to pass orders for custody of the cattle or for their sale under sub-section (6) of section 11, the Act has provided sufficient safeguard. The Authorised Officer who under sub-sections (4) and (5) of section 11 of the Act is required to act quasi judicially, has been given power to order such custody or sale as the case might be. The Licensing Authority or the officer seizing the article who are likely to act upon their subjective satisfaction in effecting seizures cannot pass orders for sale of the cattle. The Licensing Authority or the officer seizing the article who are likely to act upon their subjective satisfaction in effecting seizures cannot pass orders for sale of the cattle. Secondly, guide-lines have been provided for exercise of the power of sale etc. under section 11(6) of the Act. 22. In the case of D. Shanthalakshmi and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others (Supra), the Division Bench of the Madras High Court had considered the provisions of section 14(4) of the Madras Prohibition Act which are different from those contained in section 11 of the West Bengal Cattle Licensing Act. One of the reasons given for striking down section 14(4) of the Madras Prohibition Act was that the said provision authorised executive authority to detain with a further stipulation that no interim order regarding disposal of the property shall be passed by the court till the case is disposed of. Therefore, approach to the court itself for getting redressal with regard to the property detained had been prohibited by section 14(4) of the Madras Act. Unlike the provisions of section 14(4) of the Madras Prohibition Act section 11 of the Act has conferred power upon the authorised officer to pass interim order for custody or sale of the seized cattle in case he considers it expedient to do so for avoiding imminent danger of the cattle or the article seized. Secondly, under the West Bengal Cattle Licensing Act, 1984 the Licensing Authority or any other officer is entitled to seize any cattle or article used for running a khatal in respect of which there is reason to believe that the provisions of the Act have been contravened. While under she Madras Prohibition Act contraband liquor was liable to be confiscated only when the owner was aware of such illicit use of the vehicle and did not take due care in prevention of the commission of an offence against the said Prohibition Act, under the West Bengal Cattle Licensing Act no person shall keep in or import in any urban area any cattle except under a valid licence. Under the substituted section 11(1) of the said Act the Licensing Authority or the Authorised Officer has power to seize any cattle etc., in respect of which they have reason to believe that the provisions of the Act have been contravened. Under the substituted section 11(1) of the said Act the Licensing Authority or the Authorised Officer has power to seize any cattle etc., in respect of which they have reason to believe that the provisions of the Act have been contravened. The proceeding under section 11 is for determination by the Authorised Officer in accordance with the principles of natural justice whether the seized cattle etc, may be forfeited. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the decision of the Division Bench in the case of D. Shanthalakshmi and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others (Supra), does not at all aid the case of the writ petitioner-respondents that sub-sections (1) to (3) and (6) of the substituted section 11 of the West Bengal Cattle Licensing Act are ultra vires. 23. Reference is made then to the decision in (5) Corporation of Calcutta v. Calcutta Tramways Co. Ltd., AIR 1964 SC 1299 where the provisions of section 437(1)(b) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act came up for consideration. Section 437(1)(b) prohibits user of any premises for any purpose which in the opinion of the Corporation (which opinion shall be conclusive and not challengable in any Court) will be dangerous to life, health or property or likely to create a nuisance. The Supreme Court held that such a restriction is capricious and arbitrary and further that the conferment of such a power on a municipal body which has the effect of imposing restriction on carrying on trade etc., cannot be said to be a reasonable restriction. It is urged that sub-section (3) of section 11 vests uncontrolled and unlimited discretionary power to officers to detain the seized cattle, that sub-section (6) empowers the Authorised Officer to detain the seized cattle in Government Firm or even to sell them and it is argued that such powers being arbitrary and not justiciable, the provisions which confer such powers should be struck down following the decision in Corporation of Calcutta v. Calcutta Tramways. 24. The provisions of sub-sections (3) and (6) of section 11 are to apply during the period in between the seize and final disposal of forfeiture proceedings. 24. The provisions of sub-sections (3) and (6) of section 11 are to apply during the period in between the seize and final disposal of forfeiture proceedings. Since the end result of such proceedings viz., forfeiture of the cattle has already been held intra vires an interim provision which is absolutely necessary for attaining that end result must also be held to be intra vius notwithstanding that such a provision may impose restriction on the owners of the cattle to carryon their business. 25. It is pointed out next that sub-sections (3) and (6) nowhere mention that the detention of the cattle contemplated by them will be made only in the interest of the general public which alone could bring them under the cover of Article 19(6) of the Constitution and that on the other hand sub-section-(6) empowers the Authorised Officer to detain the cattle in Government Farm or even to sell them to avoid "imminent danger to the seized cattle" a reason which does not meet the requirement of Article 19(6). 26. It has already been held that the impugned Act has been made in the interest of the general public. In that view of the matter it certainly was not necessary to add a rider to each section of the Act mentioning that it was being enacted in the interest of the general public. 27. Citing in (6) Dwarka Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 224 it is urged next that a law conferring arbitrary and uncontrolled power upon the Executive in the matter of regulating trade or business in normal available commodities-milk in this particular case must be held to tie unreasonable. 28. The decision has hardly any application to the fads of this case, since the object of the Act is to promote health and well being of the community and not to regulate trade or business in milk. 29. Reference is also made to (7) State of Madras v. Murray & Co., AIR 1965 Mad 301 where following the decision in the case of Chintaman v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1951 SC 118 the Madras High Court held that the State could not completely prohibit the plying of hand carts at all times in the city and .quashed Notification issued under Motor Vehicles Act and the Madras Traffic Rules. 30. 30. This decision also has no application since the impugned Act does not prohibit business in milk. It only, prohibits keeping of cattle within the city limits of Calcutta Corporation and other prohibited areas. For the same reasons in (8) Municipal Commissioner, Amritsar v. State of Punjab, AIR 1969 SC 1100 at page 1106 has also no application to the case at hand since it cannot be said that the impugned Act seeks to impose an unreasonable restrictions on the right to carryon the business in milk. 31. Reference is made next to (9) Jagdish Chand v. State of Punjab, AIR 1972 SC 2587 where forfeiture of money paid at an auction sale and resumption of land without any relief against forfeiture were struck down. It is urged that in the instant case also, the unlimited detention of cattle till the conclusion of forfeiture proceeding amounts to interim forfeiture without any relief against such forfeiture. 32. Provisions for search and seizure of articles or animals in respect of which offences are suspected to have been committed are to be found in various' statutes. Therefore, the writ petitioners have not urged that a power to seize the animals in respect of which their owners had prima facie committed breaches of the provisions of W. B. Cattle Licensing Act is per so arbitrary or unreasonable. 33. It must also be said that there is nothing like interim-forfeiture. The question of providing any relief against such forfeiture hardly arises. Besides, the impugned Act seeks to remedy a situation which is proving to be a menace against the society and is aimed at controlling the activities of those who are directly responsible for creating that situation. Consideration in such a case must be different from a case which deals with matters purely civil in nature. The decision in Jagdish Chand's case cannot, therefore, have any application to the facts of the case at hand. In a particular case where the disposal of the case is cordialy delayed and the interim custody period is inordinately long the person aggrieved may has his remedies. 34. The decision in Jagdish Chand's case cannot, therefore, have any application to the facts of the case at hand. In a particular case where the disposal of the case is cordialy delayed and the interim custody period is inordinately long the person aggrieved may has his remedies. 34. It is pointed out next that the impugned Amendment Act does not provide for any hearing to be given to the owners of the seized cattle before the Authorised Officer passes order for custody of the cattle in a Government Farm or for sale of such cattle by Public Auction and nor does it provide for an appeal from such an order and it is argued that the absence of these provisions make the entire impugned Amendment Act arbitrary and harsh and thus liable to be set aside. 35. We do not find any great merit in this argument too. Provisions such as contemplated by section 11(6) of the Amended Act are made to meet emergent situations. Section 451 of the Cr. P.C. contains provisions parallel to the provisions of that sub-section. Such a provision cannot be called bad simply because it does not provide for a hearing to the owner or for an appeal from the order of disposal passed by the competent Authority. 36. Reliance is also placed on (10) Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180 where it was held that the ouster of pavement-dwellers could amount to depriving them of their fundamental right to life and that such right cannot be taken away before the persons concerned are given a right to make a representation. 37. The facts of the cited case are very much different from the facts of the case at hand. The pavement-dwellers certainly violate the Municipal law by doing what they do. The offence of those who violate the Cattle Licensing Act is certainly much mere grave; for, what they do go directly against the interests of society. Since keeping the offending cattle out of the prohibited area is the only remedy the situation asks for, any measure that has the same object in view must be held to be within the compass of the Act. 38. It is urged next that a business which is harmful to the society may be controlled or even prohibited totally by the State. 38. It is urged next that a business which is harmful to the society may be controlled or even prohibited totally by the State. Such a law cannot be found fault with as held by the Supreme Court in (11) Chamarbagwalla's, case reported in 1967 SCR 874, 930, (12) Harishankar's, case reported in AIR 1975 SC 1121 and (13) Cooverjee Bharucha's, case reported in 1954 SCR 873 . But business in milk, so it is contended, cannot be said to be harmful to the members of the public. It is pointed out that even section 4 of the Act actually permits householders and even non-householders to keep cattle inside and import cattle into the prohibited territory. 39. We do not find any great merit in this argument too. What the impugned Act seeks to prohibit is keeping of cattle inside prohibited area. It does not prohibit any business in milk as such. It may also be pointed out that section 9(2) and section 9A(2) of the impugned Act actually prohibit granting of Class B and Class C licenses for keeping cattle in and importing cattle into prohibited and restricted territory respectively altogether. This argument therefore, avails the respondent-petitioners nothing. 40. Lastly, it is argued that even granting that the provisions of the impugned Act are not ultra vires they do not deprive the authorised/licensing officers of their discretion to return the cattle to the owner and that as such it must be contended that by passing the impugned order what A. K. Sengupta, J. did was to exercise that discretion. 41. The impugned Act does not contain any provision permitting the Licensing Authority or the Authorised Officer to place the seized cattle in custody of the owner thereof or to allow the latter to take them away outside the limits of the State. In that view of the matter it is difficult to understand how it can be said that the order challenged in this appeal was passed in terms of the provisions of the impugned Act. 42. On a consideration of the provisions of the impugned W.B. Cattle Licensing (Amendment) Act, 1984 (W.B. Act XXXVI of 1984) and the decisions cited at the Bar we conclude, therefore, that the provisions of the said Amendment Act are very much intra vires. 42. On a consideration of the provisions of the impugned W.B. Cattle Licensing (Amendment) Act, 1984 (W.B. Act XXXVI of 1984) and the decisions cited at the Bar we conclude, therefore, that the provisions of the said Amendment Act are very much intra vires. The provisions of the said Act and especially section 4 of that Act which has substituted the section 11 of the Principal Act with a new section may indeed affect the respondent-petitioners' right to carryon their business in milk during the period in between the seizure of the cattle and the finalisation of the forfeiture proceedings. The situation is however saved by Article 19(6) of the Constitution since the restrictions sought to be imposed must be considered to be reasonable and in the interest of the general public. 43. With respect the order of the learned trial Judge for return of the saized cattle to the writ petitioners upon payment of sums stipulated being de-hors the provisions of the West Bengal Cattle Licensing Act cannot be sustained. There is no provision in the said Act for return of the seized cattle to the owners even before the proceeding for forfeiture of the seized cattle are concluded. In the event after complying with the provisions of sub-sections (4) and (5) of section 11 of the Act the Authorised Officer orders forfeiture, the same would be of no legal effect in the event under orders of the trial Judge the seized cattle are released now and are allowed to be taken outside West Bengal. Therefore, if the order of the trial Judge is sustained, the entire proceeding under section 11(4) & 11(5) of the Act may become practically infructuous. Further, not only it would be difficult for the State Government and its officers to supervise the removal of the cattle from the prohibitory areas in the manner ordered by the trial court, it would be impossible to ensure that the owners of such released cattle do not over again bring the same heads of cattle to the prohibitory area. The order for release of the seized cattle and for taking them outside the territorial limits of West Bengal cannot be sustained. In view of what has been stated above the present appeal is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J. is hereby set aside and the rule is hereby discharged. The order for release of the seized cattle and for taking them outside the territorial limits of West Bengal cannot be sustained. In view of what has been stated above the present appeal is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J. is hereby set aside and the rule is hereby discharged. The Appellant-State Authorities are hereby directed to dispose of the present forfeiture case and appeal therefrom, if any, and all such other pending cases and appeals as expeditiously as possible. C. J. : I agree.