Holding

The State cannot impose higher grazing charges or a 45‑day transit limit on cattle of owners from other states as such discrimination lacks a rational basis and violates Articles 14 and 19(1)(e), (f), (g); however, prescribing a specific transit route is a permissible reasonable restriction.

Summary

The petitioners, nomadic graziers from Gujarat and Rajasthan, challenged a Madhya Pradesh notification that imposed higher grazing charges on "foreign cattle" (cattle owned by persons from other states), prescribed a specific transit route, and limited the period of transit to 45 days. They argued that these measures violated Articles 14, 19(1)(e), (f), (g) and 301 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the differential charges and the 45‑day limit lacked any rational basis and infringed the equality clause and the right to move freely and engage in trade across states. However, the Court found the prescription of a specific route to be a reasonable restriction aimed at protecting forest resources. Consequently, the higher charges and the 45‑day restriction were struck down as unconstitutional, while the route requirement was upheld. The writ petitions were allowed and costs awarded to the petitioners.

Issues considered

The validity of imposing higher grazing rates on cattle owned by persons from other states under Article 14.
Whether restricting the transit period of "foreign cattle" to 45 days violates Articles 19(1)(e), (f), (g) and Article 301.
Whether the State may discriminate between owners of cattle based on their state of residence in the exercise of its police powers.
The permissibility of prescribing a specific transit route for cattle moving through the State.

Legislation cited

Indian Forest Act, 1927s. 32(i), s. 76

Subjects

EqualityFreedom of movementInter‑state tradeGrazing ratesDiscriminationConstitutional lawArticle 14Article 19Article 301Forest protectionState regulation

Judgment

•

124
LAKSHMAN AND ORS.
A
v.

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

May6, 1983
B
[D. A. DESAI AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.]

Constitution of India, 1950-Artic/e 19 (l) (e), ( f) and (g)-State Govern-
ment-JI could discriminate between owners of cattle· belonging to its own State
and other States-If could levy higher grazing charges on owners of'foreign clzttle'

c -If could restrict the route and period of transit of 'foreign catile' through the
State.

With the purported object of inhibiting the. influx of cattle belonging to
owners of neighbouring States passing through the State of Madhya Pradesh,
the State Government issued a notification under rule 7 of the. M.P. Grazing
Rates Rules, 1979 pcescribing the route to be followed by such cattle (described
D as 'foreign cattle') whiie in transit. The notificatibn also stipulated that foreign
cattle should leave the State within a period of 45 days after the issue of the
licence, tha-t the owner should pay grazing charges of Rs. 10 per buffalo and
Rs. 5 per goat or sheep for the period of transit. A notification issued under
rule 6, however, prescribed grazing chii.rge of Re. 1 per year fOr each goat or
sheep belonging to residCnts of the State of Madhya Pradesh. No charge was
prescribed in respect of buffaloes. ·
E
The petitioners, nomad graziers of Gujarat and Rajasthan who pass
through the State of Madhya Pradesh with their cattle en routes to other
neighbouring States, in their petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution
contende.d that the notification issued under rule 7 contravened their funda-
mental rights under Articles 14, 19 (1) (e), ( f) and (g) and also their right
F under Article 301 of the Constitution· and that therefore it was invalid.

Allowing the petitions,

HELD: There was no rational basis for the- distinction made between
owners of cattle belonging to Madhya Pradesh and owners o': cattle brlC?nging
G to other States and the levy of prohibited grazing rates on owners of •foreign
cattle'. There was equally no justification in prescribing the ceiling of 45 days
during which the cattle must pass through the State. While in the case of
cattle belonging to the residents of the State of Madhya Pradesh the levy was
for one year there was no reason why the charge should be .for 45 days in the
case of cattle belonging to graziers of other States. [127 G-11, 128 A-BJ
H
under our Constitution a citizen has the right to move freely throughout
the territory of India subject to reasonable restrictions. To whichever State a
grazier may belong, he has the right to pass and repass through the State of
LAXMAM v. M.P. ('Chinnappa Reddy, J.) . 125

Madhya Pradesh ~ith his cattle in Plll'S:Uit of his oc.cupatio.n. Fores~s of the
State are not.the grazing grounds reserved for cattle belonging to residents of A
that State only. [128 D-F]

There was, however, nothing wrong in prescribing the route along which
the cattle had to pass while in transit because its object was to prevent cattle
1traying and causing indiscriminate damaa;e to forests. [128 H]
·~ B
·,if. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION:. Writ Petition Nos. 829/79, 1104, 200
~!
I & 2655 of 1980.
/
(Undet article 32 of the Constitution of India).

G. N. Dikshit, S. Markendeya, P. Sinha, M. M. Temai, J. K. c
Nayyar and S. K. Bisaria with him for the Petitioners.

S. K. Gambhir for the Respondent.

The Judgment of t~e Cciurt was delivered by D
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. The petitioners are nomad graziers of
Gujarat and Rajasthan, who wander from place to place with their
sheep, goats and cattle in search of pasture and foliage. Boundarioo
of States present no barriers to them. After all, to them and to
their livestock, it is a question of survival. In their wanderings they E
often pass through the State of Madhya Pradesh en route some times
to Uttar· Pradesh and some times to Maharashtra. This happens
particularly· in times of drought in Gujarat and Rajastha·n. . The
powers that be in the State of Madhya Pradesh became apprehensive
that uninhibited passage of large herds of these animals through F
Madhya Pradesh may lead to large scale devastation of their forest
wealth. So they hit upon a plan to prevent 'foreign cattle' from
browsing in Madhya Pradesh forests. For the moment, it was for-
gotton that India is one country and no Indian is a foreigner in any
of the constituent States of India: The plan was this : The Indian
Forest Act 1927 enabled the State Government to make rules to G
regulate the cutting of grass and pasturing of cattle in protected
forests (Sec. 32(i) and, generally, to carry out the provisions of the
Act (Sec. 76). We may note here 'cattle' as defined by s. 2(i) in-
cludes buffaloes, sheep, goats and many other specie of browsing
animals. We may also note that we are concerned in this case with H
protected forests only and not reserved forests. Rule; had been made
earlier by the Madhya Pradesh 'Qovern111ent'jn 1974 called the Madhya
•
. 126 SUPREME COURT 'REPORTS (1983J 2 S.C.R.

. Pradesh Grazing Rates Rules, 1974 by which provision was made
A for grazing licences, transit grazing licences, grazing rates and other
Srtbjects. Rule 4 prohibited grazing in closed coupes, plantation
areas and such other areas as were declared as closed for grazing by
the Divisional Forest Officer. Rule 3 provided for the issuance of
licences for grazing in pa1ticular grazing units, each forest range
B heing treated as a gra:iing unit till the constitution of such grazing
·units. Rule 5 provided for the issuance of transit licence" for transit
of cattle· through Government forests i.n the State of Madhya Pradesh,
so that cattle in transit may, not graze continuously for more than a
month in a paiticular grazing unit. Rulo 6 prescribed grazing rates,
commercial and transit. For buffaloes it was Rs. 6 per head per
c year, while for goats and sheep, it was Re. I per head per year
whether it was for comm'ercial or transit purposes. Rule' 7 pres-
cribed grazing rates for 'foreign cattle of adjoining States'. Whether
the cattle grazed in the forest or passed through the fornst, Grazing
was permitted at the rate of Rs. 10 per head per year in the case of
D buffaloes and Rs. 2 per head per year .in the case of goats and sheep.
In 1979, the rules inade in 1974 were superseded and fresh rules
were made. They are the ·rules. now in force. Rule 2(5) bans
grazing in reserved forests. Ru!C 3 provides for the issc.c of grazing
licences in grazing units so constituted. Until grazing units are
constituted, eacl:t forest range is to be treated as a sepa.rate grazing
E unit. Rule 3(2) provides for the levy of grazing charge•: at rates to
be notified from time to time. Rule 4 prohibits grazing in closed
coupes, plantation areas and other areas which are declared as closed
for grazing by the Divisional Forest Officer. Rule 5 provides for
transit grazing licences, on payment of grazing charges, for the transit
F of cattle through Government forests where the owners of the cattle
are residents of Madhya Pradesh. Cattle in. transit, however, are
hot allowed to graze continuously in the same g'razing unit for more
than 30 days. Rule 6 enables tlfe Government to notify from time
to time the rates of grazing charges and transit grazing charges pay-
able by .residents of Madhya Pradesh. Rule 7 provides for the levy
G .of grazing rates. for 'foreign cattle of adjoining States'. The rule
enables the State Government to prohibit, restrict, or in their discre-
tion to grant owners of cattle residing outside the State. of Madhya
Pradesh grazing or transit grazing facilities for their cattle on pay-
ment of charges to be notified from time to time. Rule 7(2) further
H empowers the Government to specify the specific grazing areas, the
points of entry and exit of the ro11te (o be followed by the cattle,
•
!.AXMAN v. M.P. (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 127
the period during which grazing or transit grazing should be comp-
leted, etc. On June 28, 1979, two notifications one, under rule 6 A
and the other, under ·rule 7 were issued notifying the rates of charges
for the issue of grazing and transit grazing licences. In respect of
cattle belonging to residents of Madhya Pradesh, the grazing rate
is Re. I per year for each animal in the case of goats and sheep.
Nothing is to be charged in the case of buffaloes. The notification
issued under rule 7 prescribes the routes to be followed by the cattle B
of Rajasthan and Gujarat while in transit through the State of
Madhya Pradesh. It also stipulates that the owners of catile must
take the cattle through the State of Madhya Pradesh within a period
of 45 days after tbe issue of licences. The pq,scribed grazing rates
are arc Rs. 10 per animal in the case of b11ffaloes and Rs. 5 per c
animal in the case of sheep and goats.

Apparently the Government of Madhya Pradesh wants to
inhibit the influx of cattle of other States (described in the rules as
'foreign cattle') by the method of charging higher grazing rates in D
their case than in the. case of cattle belongiug to the residents of
Madhya Pradesh, This levy of higher rates, the prescription of the
route to be followed by foreign cattl~ while in transit through Madhya
Pradesh and the stipulation that the cattle must leave Madhya
Pradesh in 45 days are questioned in these writ petitions. It is con-
tended that the petitioner's Fundamental Rights under Art. 14 and E
and Art. l9 (e) (f) and (g) and the right under Art. 301 are contra-
vened. On the other hand; it is contended on. behalf of State of
Madhya Pradesh that the rules prescribing grazing rates for 'foreign
cattle; the route to be followed by 'foreign cattle' while in transit
through Madhya Prade·sh and the period for which 'foreign cattle'
may remain within the boundaries of the State of Madhya Pradesh F
are made to regulate the inllu.x and passage of 'foreign cattle' into
and through Madhya Pradesh with a view to prevent devastation and
to protect the forest wealth of State. •

We are unable to see any rational basis· for· the distinction
made between owners of cattle belonging to Madhya Pradesh and
.~ .. owners of cattle belonging to other States (described as. owners of
'foreign cattle') and the levy of prohibited grazing rates on owners
of the so-called. 'foreign cattle'. Forests of Madhya Pradesh are
· not grazing grounds reserved for cattle belonging to residents of H
Madhya Pradesh only even as the towns and viliages of Madhya
J'radesh cannot be reserved for the residents' of the ori~nal residept~·
128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1983] 3 s.c.R.

~f Madhya Pradesh only. Accidents of birth and geography cannot
A furnish the credentials for such discrimination and authorise prejudi-
cial treatment in matters of this nature. We do not say that geo-
graphical classification is never permissible. For example, a prefe-
~eilce given by a State to its residents in the matter of admission to
~ducational institutions maintained by the State from its revenues
may be well justified. · But we are unable to see any such justification
B
for the levy of virtually penal grazing charges in the case of owners
of cattle belonging to other States. The only attempt at justification
is that the influx of 'foreign cattle' is resulting in the destruction of
the forest wealth "of the State. It is difficult to understand this
justification. If cattle belonging to residents of Madhya Pradesh are
c allowed to graze, will it not lead to the same damage as by the cattle
belonging to persons of other States '! Surely, it c.1nnot be that ihc
Madhya Pradesh cattle are less destructive than the cattle belonging
to persons of other States. Further if the object was to prevent all
cattle from grazing in protected forests, such grazing could have
been banned as in the case of reserved forests. Even in the case of
D the so-called foreign cattle, cattle belonging to owners who are rich,
may yet have their cattle graze in the Madhya Pradesh forests but not
cattle belonging to poorer graziers. Further, subject to reasonable
restrictions which may be imposed in the interests of the ge~eral
public, a citizen has the right under our Constitution to move freely
E throughout the territory of India, to reside and settle in any part Of
the territory of India and to practise any profession, ·or to cany on T
any occupation, trade or business. Graziers, be they of Madhya
Pradesh, Gujarat or Rajashthan, therefore, have· the right to pass
and repass through the State of Madhya Pradesh with their cattle
in the pursuit of their occupation. The right is, of· course, subject
F to reasonable restrictions in the interests of the general public. We ,. r
are enable to discover any reasonable basis for classifying graziers
i'o.to those belonging to Madhy Pradesh and those be longing to other
States; nor are we able to discover any acceptable reason behind the
restriction imposed on graziers of other States by the heavier charge
G made on them: We are convinced that their is no justification what-
soever for charging higher grazing rates for cattle belonging to
. persons of other States. In regard to the prescription of the route
along which the cattle have to be taken while in transit, however we
find nothing wrong with it, since the object is obviously to prevent
H cattle straying and causing indiscriminate damage to forests. We
are, however, unable to justify the ceiling of 45 days in which cattle
must pass through the State of Madhya Pradesh. In the case of ·
LAXMAN v. M.P. ( Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 129

cattle belonging.to residents of Madhya Pradesh, the grazing rate is
levied for a period of one year._ There is no reason why the charge A
should be levied for 45 days in the case of penons belon·g;ng to other
States. The apprehension. that ea1tle, if allowed to graze in the same
place for a long time, may destroy the pasture and foliage altogether
is taken care of by the other rules which prescribe that the cattle
'
may not graze in the same grazing unit for more than a month. In
B
the circumstances, we qua,sh the levy of higher grazing rates in the
case of cattle belonging to persons .. of States other ·than Mndhya
Pradesh and direct the respondents to levy the same rat¢s as they
do in the case of cait!e belonging to residents of Madhya Pradesh.
The limit of stay of 45 days is also declared unconstitutional. The
writ petitions a~e ·allowed accordingly, The petitioners will get c
their costs. . .

P.B.R. Petitions allowed

--.
-,

,. (