JUDGMENT 1. - These above mentioned 9 petitions are disposed of by one order as similar points for consideration have been raised. The petitioners are butchers and have challenged the vires of Section 90 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act, 1959') and have also claimed that licence for buffalo meat shop be issued to them and that Municipal Council, Beawar be directed not to interfere in their profession of holding buffalo meat shop which is their exclusive source of livelihood at Beawar. 2. The petitioners are residents of Beawar town, District Ajmer, and have stated that they earned their livelihood exclusively from profession of running buffalo meat shop. They claim that even their fore-fathers earned their livelihood through this profession. It is stated that petitioners even at present earn their livelihood by running a buffalo meat shop at Beawar. It is further submitted that licence for running a buffalo meat shop is granted in various cities of Rajasthan e.g. Jaipur, Tonk, Ajmer, Nasirabad Cantt., etc. and these licences are issued on the same pattern as the licences for goat meat shops are issued by the Municipal Councils and Municipal Boards. A reference has been made to the notification dated July 2, 1979 issued by the department of Local Self Government, the Govt of Rajasthan, which provides the rates and charges regarding butchering the buffaloes in the area of Jaipur Municipal Council which was published in Rajasthan Rajpatra dated July 5, 1979. A photostat copy of notification dated July 5, 1979 is marked as Annexure-1. Annexure 2 to 6 are photostat copies of the receipts for amount calculated by Municipal Council, Jaipur for butchering the he-buffalo (Pada). Annexure-7 is photostat copy of the receipt of the amount calculated by Municipal Council, Tonk regarding the same purpose. The petitioner applied to Municipal Council, Beawar, from time to time for issuing licence for running the shop of buffalo meat but the same was not granted and their applications were not taken and the petitioners were verbally informed that no licences for selling meat of buffalo shop will be issued. The petitioner applied to Municipal Council, Beawar, from time to time for issuing licence for running the shop of buffalo meat but the same was not granted and their applications were not taken and the petitioners were verbally informed that no licences for selling meat of buffalo shop will be issued. The petitioners have given the last date in the year 1986 on which applications for issuing licences for running buffalo meat shop was made to the Municipal Council, Beawar, but the same was not accepted and the said original application in each of the writ petitions has been placed on record. It is further submitted that respondent No. I is regularly issuing licence for running goat meat shops in the town of Beawar but no licence for running buffalo-meat shops are issued to the petitioners even though they are ready and willing to pay the necessary charges for the same. It is also pointed out that the petitioners have been challaned in court of law by respondent No. 1 from time to time for selling buffalo meat without licence. The Courts have imposed fines on them. The photostat copies of the receipts of fines deposited by the petitioners have been placed on record which are marked as Annexure 9 to 14 in writ petition bearing No. 500,187. Such receipts of payment of fines have been filed with all the writ petitions under different Annexure-numbers. The photostat copies of the notices issued by the respondent No. 1 to the petitioner in writ petition bearing No. 500/87 have been placedon record and marked as Annexure- 15 and 16. Similar notices issued in the other petitions mentioned above have also been placed on record. The petitioner in writ petition No. 500/87 has filed copies of the site plan showing the situation of the shop in which he sells buffalo meat and it is claimed that it is similar to the situation of shops where goat meat is sold, which are marked as Annexure-l7 and 18. Similar copies of the site-plans showing the situation of the shops of various petitioners in which they sell buffalo-meat have also been filed along with other writ petitions. It is further submitted that the petitioners persued the matter to the level of Collector Ajmer, Director Local Self Department, Government of Rajasthan but with no result. Similar copies of the site-plans showing the situation of the shops of various petitioners in which they sell buffalo-meat have also been filed along with other writ petitions. It is further submitted that the petitioners persued the matter to the level of Collector Ajmer, Director Local Self Department, Government of Rajasthan but with no result. Since the petitioners are suffering great hardships and harassment, as challans are filed against the petitioners from time to time by the respondent No. 1 in court of law and the petitioners have to deposit the fine frequently, a notice for demand of justice dated July 3, 1986 in petition No. 500/87 was served on respondent No. 1 by his counsel, but with no result. A copy of the notice for demand of justice has been filed and is marked as Annexure-XIX. Similar notices for demand of justice were served on respondent No. 1 in other writ petitions also which have been placed on record alongwith petitions. 3. The contention of Shri S. M. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioners are butchers by profession and their only source of livelihood is to run a buffalo meat shop since the days of their fore-fathers. The petitioners have no other source of livelihood and the refusal of issue of licence for holding buffalo- meat shop will result in total loss for livelihood to all petitioners and their families. The petitioners have fundamental right to carry-on their profession for earning their livelihood and the refusal of grant of licences by respondent No. 1 to run a buffalo meat shop clearly infringes Article 19(l)(g) of the Constitution. It is further contended that since licences for running shops of goat meat are issued by respondent No. 1, the petitioners cannot be discriminated from those butchers who have been granted licences to run goat meat shops as also from such butchers who have been granted licences for running buffalo meat shops in other cities of Rajasthan e. g. Jaipur, Tonk, Nasirabad Cantt. etc. It is also contended that the price of the meat of goat is very high in comparison to that of buffalo and many middle class families or poor sections of the society cannot afford to buy goat meat and depend for their diet on buffalo meat. It is further contended that Section 90 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act. etc. It is also contended that the price of the meat of goat is very high in comparison to that of buffalo and many middle class families or poor sections of the society cannot afford to buy goat meat and depend for their diet on buffalo meat. It is further contended that Section 90 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act. 1959 (for short 'the Act, 1959') is arbitrary and unreasonable and should be struck down. Even though the respondent No.1 is empowered to frame appropriate bye-laws under the provisions of the Act, 1959 for issuing licences for meat shop but respondent No. 1 has deliberately not framed any bye-laws regarding issue of licences for running of meat shops of buffalo which has resulted in total prohibition for the petitioners to earn their livelihood by running shops of buffalo meat which is their profession since fore-fathers. 4. Reliance has been placed on Mohd. Hanif Khan and ors. v. State of Bihar and ors., AIR 1958 SC 731 and Mohd. Faruk v. State of M. P. and ors., AIR 1970 SC 93 and Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and ors. v. Jan Mohd. Usmanbhai and anr., AIR 1986 SC 1205 . 5. The contention of Shri S. R. Surana. learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 1 is that sale of buffalo meat has never been allowed within municipal limits of Beawar. It is pointed out that he-buffalo is used for loading and un-loading of heavy articles in the hilly areas of Beawar and is also used in carts. She buffalo yields milk which is necessary for the people living in Beawar. It is also pointed out that the respondent No. 1 has framed bye-laws to regulate the slaughter houses and also to run goat meat shops. Slaughtering of buffalo or selling its meat has not been allowed and there is no provision in the bye-laws of respondent No. 1 regarding sale of meat of he-buffaloes (Pada). It is contended that according to the hygienic conditions, legal requirements, health, safety and convenience of the municipality it was not found suitable to allow sale of buffalo meat in Beawar. It is contended that according to the hygienic conditions, legal requirements, health, safety and convenience of the municipality it was not found suitable to allow sale of buffalo meat in Beawar. It is denied in the return filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 that any application for issue of licence for running shop of buffalo meat was moved by the petitioners, therefore respondent No. 1 has not refused to grant licence for issue of buffalo-meat even though no such provision exists in the bye-laws framed by respondent No. 1. It is further contended that the respondent No.1 has authority under law to refuse issue of any licence. It is alto pointed out by the learned counsel that buffalo has its own importance. If he-buffalo is allowed to be slaughtered there will be eradication of growth of he or She) buffaloes. Apart from this there are problems like medical as well as the feelings of the locality. It is contended that if the licence for selling the meat of buffaloes is allowed, there is likelihood of great un-rest among particular section of the people living in Beawar. The religious feelings of public at large are seriously involved and it is not safe and convenient and is also against health point of view of the people who will consume the buffalo meat. Looking to the particular circumstances of Beawar town, sale of meat was therefore, not found suitable. It is also contended that petitioners are not by profession meat sellers. It is also contended that the petitioners can obtain licence for sale of goat meat but want licence for sale of buffalo meat only with a view to injure the religions feelings and create hatred between two communities living in Beawar. Reliance has been placed on Madhu Limaye and anr. v. S.D. Monghyr & ors. AIR 1971 SC 2486 , Babul Mitra v. State of West Bengal and others AIR 1973 SC 197 , Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad & ors. v. Jan Mohammed Usmanbhai and another AIR 1986 SC 1205 and Abdul Gani v. Administrator, Municipal Board, Barmer AIR RLW 372 . 6. We have heard both the parties, gone through the pleadings and documents on record. v. Jan Mohammed Usmanbhai and another AIR 1986 SC 1205 and Abdul Gani v. Administrator, Municipal Board, Barmer AIR RLW 372 . 6. We have heard both the parties, gone through the pleadings and documents on record. The respondent No. 1 has not placed any material on record to show that the petitioners are not butchers by profession who deal with sale of buffalo and beef meat or that this is not their only work on which their livelihood depends. On the other hand the fact that the petitioners have been challaned by respondent No. 1 from time to time in court of law for selling beef "Pada" meat without licence and have been fined by court on this account shows that the petitioners are engaged in this profession. We have not found any reason to disbelieve the averments and affidavits filed in this regard wherein it has been stated that the sole profession from the time of their fore-fathers is sale of beef of "Pada" meat. Admittedly the respondent No. 1 has framed bye-laws under Section 90 (1) of the Act, 1959 in the year 1978 regarding sale of meat for human consumption and separate bye-laws in the same year regarding maintenance of slaughter house in the bye-laws dealing with sale of meat for human consumption bye-law No. 3(1) mentions regarding sale of meat of he-goat, sheep and fish for human consumption. In both sets of the bye-laws various terms and conditions have been laid down which have to be followed by those who sell above meat and fish for human consumption. In the bye-laws dealing with sale of meat of (he) goat/fish for human consumption, there is no mention regarding sale of beef /' pada" meat for human consumption. The petitioners as stated above have produced on record notification issued by Department of Local-Self-Government dated July 2, 1979 providing bye-laws for slaughterhouse in city of Jaipur in which mention of charges of butchering of buffaloes is mentioned. This was published in Rajasthan Raj-Patra, dated July, 5, 1979 and has been marked as Annexure-1, in petition No. 500/87. Reference may be made to Article 48 in part 4 of the Constitution which deals with directive principles of State Policy. This was published in Rajasthan Raj-Patra, dated July, 5, 1979 and has been marked as Annexure-1, in petition No. 500/87. Reference may be made to Article 48 in part 4 of the Constitution which deals with directive principles of State Policy. This article is regarding organisation of agricultural and animal husbandry and reads as under:- "Organisation of agriculture and animal husbandary:-The State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandary on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle." The main purpose of this article is to see that effort is made to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on scientific lines and necessary steps for preserving and improving the breeds and prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle are taken. Reference may be made to entry 15 in List II of the Seventh-Schedule to the Constitution. That entry reads:- preservation, protection and improvement of stock and prevention of animal diseases; veterinary training and practice -This part of the directive principles recommends protection regarding cows and calves and to such ether animals who are capable of yielding milk or of doing work as draught cattle. There is no directive regarding protection to every type of cattle which at one time were milch, are capable of working as draught cattle but are no more fit for that purpose. Part 11 of the Constitution deals with fundamental rights, Article 19(g) states that all citizens shall have the right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. Part 11 of the Constitution deals with fundamental rights, Article 19(g) states that all citizens shall have the right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. Sub-clause (2) of Article 19 provides that nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State for making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the sub-clause in the interest of (the sovereignty and integrity of India) the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an ." Sub-clause (6) of Article 19 provides that Nothing in sub-clause (g) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevents the State from making any law imposing in the interests of the general public, reasonable restriction on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause, and, in particular, (nothing in the said sub-clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it relate, to, or prevent the State from making any law relating to : (i) the professional or technical qualifications necessary for practising any profession or carrying of any occupation, trade or business, or; (ii) the carrying on by the State, or by a corporation owned or controlled by the State, of any trade, business, industry or service whether to the exclusion complete or partial of citizens or otherwise." 7. It is thus clear that even though any citizen of India has right to practice any profession or occupation or trade or business, still the State can impose restrictions in the interest of general public, on exercise of the right conferred by this Article. However such restrictions have necessarily to be reasonable. It will also be helpful to go through Article 25 which deals with right to freedom of religion. However such restrictions have necessarily to be reasonable. It will also be helpful to go through Article 25 which deals with right to freedom of religion. Article 25 (1) reads as under:- "Subject to public order, morality and health and to the ether provision; of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propogate religion." Article 14 provides that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the law within the territory of India. The meaning and scope and effect of Article 14 has been explained by the Apex Court in series of decisions including M. H. Quareshi and others v. State of Bihar and others (supra). The Apex Court has held that it is now will established that while Article 14 forbids class legislation it does not forbid reasonable-classification for the purposes of legislation and that to order to pass the test of permissible classification two condition must be fulfilled, namely, (i) the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and (ii) such differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. The classification, it has been held, may be founded on different bases namely, geographical, or according to objects or occupations or the like and what is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the Act under consideration. "Therefore, what is to be seen is whether not permitting the petitioners from carrying on their profession/occupation of selling buffalo meat for which separate classification has been urged from the meat of goat/sheep/fish stands the above test and whether there is nexus between the basis for this classification and object which respondent No. 1 wants to achieve. The contention of learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 is that goat meat is altogether different from the buffalo meat and the respondent No. 1 has authority in law to refuse to issue licence for this purpose. This has been done keeping in view consideration of public health, safety and religious feelings of public at large. The contention of learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 is that goat meat is altogether different from the buffalo meat and the respondent No. 1 has authority in law to refuse to issue licence for this purpose. This has been done keeping in view consideration of public health, safety and religious feelings of public at large. It is also stated that if the licence for selling the meat of buffaloes is allowed, there is likely to be great unrest among people. It has also been pointed out that buffalo has got its own importance and if he- buffaloes will be allowed to be slaughtered there will be eradication of the growth of he or she buffaloes. It can, therefore be said that the object sought to be achieved by making no provision for issue of licence for selling of buffalo meat or slaughtering the same in slaughter-houses by respondent No. 1 in its two sets of bye-laws mentioned above is preservation of he and she buffaloes, which are no doubt important cattle for the agricultural economy of the country. Female- buffaloes yield much quantity of milk and are therefore looked after well and as draught cattle male-buffaloes are also useful. For the attainment of these objectives it may be necessary that slaughtering of cattle i.e. buffaloes should be dealt with more stringently than that of goats/sheep. It can, therefore, be said that the classification has some inteligible basis. It has to be seen whether the total restrictions placed by respondent No. 1 has any nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the respondent No. 1. 8. The Cattle Preservation and Development Committee set up by the Government of India as early as 1948 in its report did not recommend immediate total ban on slaughter of cattle. The Apex Court took note of the report of the said committee in para No. 39 of the case of M.H. Quareshi v. State of Bihar (supra), that the committee did not prohibit the slaughter of animals over the age of 14 years and of such animals who had become permanently unfit for the work or breeding due to age or deformity. It was mentioned in the report of the said committee that the total ban on the slaughter of all cattle would not be in the best interests of the country as it is merely a negative and not a positive approach to the problem. The committee considered that a constructive approach to the problem will be to see that no useful animal is slaughtered and that the country's resources are fully harnessed to produce better and more efficient cattle. It can, therefore, be said that the maintenance of useless cattle means waste and drain on the nation's cattle feed. To maintain useless cattle will directly result in deprivation of the much needed nourishment to the useful cattle. It may also be said complete ban on slaughter of even useless cattle will have serious repurcations on the business of a considerable section of population who are butchers (Kasais) by occupation. Such a blanket ban will also deprive a sizable section of the people of their staple food. After considering the all aspects of the matter their lordships of the Supreme Court observed as under:- "So approaching and analysing the problem, we have reached the conclusion (i) ....................................... (ii) that a total ban on the slaugher of she-buffaloes or breeding bulls or working bullocks (cattle as well as buffaloes) as long as they are milch or draught cattle is also reasonable and valid and (iii) that a total ban on the slaughter of she-buffaloes, bulls and bullocks (cattle or buffalo) after they cease to be capable of yielding milk or of breeding or working as draught animals cannot be supported as reasonable in the interest of the general public." 9. While considering the validity of law which imposes prohibition on carrying on a business or a profession the courts have to evaluate direct and immediate impact of such a prohibition on the fundamental rights of citizens affected thereby and larger public interest sought to be entered in the light of the object sought to be achieved. The court has also to consider whether such an object can be achieved by imposing a less drastic restraint which may ensure the object intended to be achieved. In the case of Chintamanrao and anr. The court has also to consider whether such an object can be achieved by imposing a less drastic restraint which may ensure the object intended to be achieved. In the case of Chintamanrao and anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1951 SC 118 , in which the phrase 'reasonable restrictions' connotes that the limitation imposed on a person in enjoyment of the right should not be arbitrary or of excessive nature, beyond what is required in the interests of the public. The word "reasonable" implies intelligent care & deliberation, that is the choice of a course which reason dictates. Legislation which arbitrarily or excessively invades the right cannot be said to contain the quality of reasonableness & unless it strikes a proper balance between the freedom guaranteed in Article 19(1)(g) & the social control permitted by cl. (6) of Article 19, it must be held to be wanting in that quality. It is correct that respondent No. 1 can be said to some extent to be the best judge of what is good for the persons living in town of Beawar, but the ultimate responsibility for determining the validity of bye-laws framed by respondent No. 1 must rest with the court and the court must not shirk that solemn duty cast on it by the Constitution. 10. When the restriction on the exercise of a fundamental right, in the form of control or prohibition is placed the burden of proving that such control or total ban on the exercise of the right is necessary for maintenance of general public interest, lies heavily on the authority which puts up such control or prohibition. In this case the respondent No. 1 has by refusing to issue licence to the petitioners for slaughtering beef and sale the same, has imposed total ban on their profession which is the source of their livelihood. We are not convinced by the grounds which have been already discussed above, put-forward by the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 justifying the refusal to issue the licence to the petitioners for selling beef meat. Keeping this object in view respondent No. 1, by framing bye- laws for regulating slaughterhouses and meat shops for sale of he-goat she-Sheep and fish have not provided any such bye-law for sale of beef meat. Keeping this object in view respondent No. 1, by framing bye- laws for regulating slaughterhouses and meat shops for sale of he-goat she-Sheep and fish have not provided any such bye-law for sale of beef meat. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the case of Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and others v. Jan Mohammed Usmanbhai & another (supra). This was a case in which the appellants had declared certain days as holidays by standing orders on which no slaughtering of the animals was to be done. It was held by the Apex Court that such a prohibition was not unreasonable and is in public-interest and that standing orders were not un-constitutional Khatki Ahmed Mushabhai v. Limdi Municipality, AIR 1979 SC 418 . was a case in which the appellant made an application to the respondent Municipality for issue of licence for a meat-shop which was refused by the Municipality on the ground that it was not reasonable to grant licence to the same person or one for the father and another for the son. The appellant wanted to sale meat in a shop which was in proximity to schools, public institutions etc. The Apex Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the discrimination exercised by the respondent Municipality in not issuing licence to the appellant keeping in view the facts mentioned above. Abdul Gan v. Administrator. Municipal Board, Barmer & anr. was a case in which no bye-laws had been framed by the concerned Municipal Board tinder Section 90 under the provisions of the Act. 1959. The petitioner applied for grant of licence for running a meat-shop in a particular locality which was refused by the Municipal Board. This was a case in which the Municipal Board refused to grant licence for running a meat shop in the particular locality and in the shop in which the petitioner wanted to do his business of selling meat. It was held by this Court that even though the Municipal Board had not framed any bee-laws under Section 90 if the Act of 1959, it did not affect the jurisdiction conferred by Section 235 of the Act of 1959 on it. It was held by this Court that even though the Municipal Board had not framed any bee-laws under Section 90 if the Act of 1959, it did not affect the jurisdiction conferred by Section 235 of the Act of 1959 on it. It was further held that it was within the jurisdiction of the Board to refine to grant licence to a particular person to carry a particular trade at a particular locality on the ground of public safety, convenience and health. Such power, it was further held, was not arbitrary. The authorities cited by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 are hardly of any help to him. The contention of learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 that the petitioners are not butchers (Kasais) by profession and no buffalo meat is sold by them in town of Beawar has also no force. The documents on record which have been already referred to above show that the petitioners have been challaned in court of law by the respondent No. 1 from time to time for selling buffalo meat and the law courts have imposed fines on them also. We are of the considered opinion that no question of religious feelings of public at large or public health and safety is involved in issuing licences for sale of buffalo/ beef meat to the petitioners.As was held in Mohd. Faruk v. State of M. P. (supra), by the Apex Court, the sentiments of a section of the people may be hurt by permitting slaughter of bulls and bullocks in premises maintained by a local authority, but a prohibition, imposed on the exercise of a fundamental right to carry on an occupation, trade or business will not be regarded as reasonable, if it is imposed not in the interest of the general public, but merely to respect the susceptibilities and sentiments of a section of the people whose way of life, belief or thought is not the same as that of the petitioners. The total ban placed by respondent No. 1 offends the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Article 19(l)(g) as it totally prohibits the slaughter of buffaloes/bulls without prescribing any test or requirement as to their age or usefulness. The total ban placed by respondent No. 1 offends the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Article 19(l)(g) as it totally prohibits the slaughter of buffaloes/bulls without prescribing any test or requirement as to their age or usefulness. As held by the Supreme Court in case of M. H. Quareshi (Supra) the experts are all almost unanimous that after age of 15 years buffaloes/bulls/bullocks are no longer useful for breeding, draught and other purposes and whatever little use, they may have then is greatly off-set by the economic-disadvantage and maintaining unserviceable cattle. 11. We. however, did not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that Section 90 of Act, 1959 is ultravires. Under Section 90 powers have been given to the various Municipal Boards/Councils for framing bye-laws regarding inspection of markets, public-place used for the sale of articles and slaughter houses, etc. The Municipalities have been authorised to prescribe the conditions under which the licences may be granted, refused suspended or with drawn. It is respondent No. 1 who has framed, such bye-laws which have resulted in total ban on sale of buffalo/beef meat, as stated by the petitioner themselves. This contention of the petitioners is rejected as having no force. 12. In the result, the petitions are allowed. Respondent No. 1 & 2 are directed to issue licences to the petitioners for butchering & sale of buffalo meat. The respondent No. 1 & 2 keeping in view the observations made above regarding age etc. approve suitable situation of shop/shops on reasonable terms and conditions where the petitioners may sell the buffalo meat. 13. No order as to costs.Petitions allowed *******