P L D 1964 (W (PLP)

2. The Ordinance was promulgated on the 18th of July 1959 and its preamble states that it is expedient in the public interest to restrict the number of goats in the Province of West Pakistan. In section 3 of the Ordinance it is provided that Government may, by notification, declare that in any specified area, hereinafter referred to as local area, it shall be unlawful to graze or pasture goats on any land, after twelve months of the publication of the notification; and after eighteen months of the publication of the notification, to keep goats. The proviso to this section lays down that Government may in any area permit the keeping of goats subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. Section 12 of the Ordinance gives power to the Government to make rules to carry out the purpose of this Ordinance. In particular these rules may provide for procedure for application of this Ordinance to any local area; conditions and procedure for permission to keep goats in local area; regula tion of the leading, driving, conducting or conveying of goats in or through a local area; regulation of the proportion of goats slaughtered in a slaughter house; and maintenance of records and submission of returns relating to slaughter of goats and sheep.

3. A notification under section 3 was issued on the 29th of September 1961 in which the area in dispute was included as one of the local areas along with several other districts or parts of districts of the Province. This notification was amended on the 10th of January 1964 so as to delete certain areas and to make certain other minor amendments.

4. Now, the fundamental rights relied upon on behalf of the petitioners are worded as follows:‑ "

8. Freedom of trade, business or profession.‑Every citizen, possessing such qualifications, if any, as may be prescribed by law in relation to his profession or occupation, shall have the right to enter upon any lawful profession or occupation, and to conduct any lawful trade or business Provided that nothing in this paragraph shall prevent‑ (a) the regulation of any trade or profession by a licensing system; or (b) the regulation of trade, commerce or industry in the interest of free competition therein; or (c) the carrying on, by the Central or a Provincial Govern ment or by a corporation controlled by any such Government, of any trade, business, industry or service, to the exclusion, complete or partial, of other persons.

13. Provision as to property.‑Subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the public interest, every citizen shall have the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property.

14. Protection of property rights.‑ (1) No person shall be deprived of his property save in accordance with law.

15. Equality of citizens.‑All citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law."

5. The right of freedom of trade, business or profession as embodied in clause 8, reproduced above, is hardly relevant in the present context for the reason that the petitioners are not keeping goats as a matter of profession or business. The averments in the writ petition are only to the effect that the petitioners have been keeping cattle, including goats, and have been grazing them in the Reserve Forest as of right. It is clear' to us, therefore, that the Ordinance does not infringe the petitioners' right of freedom of trade, business or profession.

6. Similarly, the fundamental right enumerated in clause 14 (1) can hardly be invoked in the present case, as the Ordinance does not aim at depriving the petitioners of their goats by compulsory acquisition or otherwise. The whole of clause 14 is devoted to the protection of property rights against forcible B seizure or compulsory acquisition and does not appear to us to be intended to cover cases of restrictions which may be placed on the right to hold property. In that context it is clause 13 which has to be considered. It is clear that the Ordinance does impose restrictions on the right of the petitioners to hold a certain kind of property, namely, goats. The question, however, is whether the restrictions imposed by the Ordinance are reasonable res trictions and whether they have been imposed in the public interest.

7. We have already referred to the preamble of the Ordinance which is to the effect that it is expedient in the public interest to restrict the number of goats in the Province of West Pakistan. We can take judicial notice of the fact, and this is also conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the C Ordinance has been promulgated with a view to preventing soil erosion and destruction of forests which have resulted from the grazing of goats. That being so, it is clear that the restrictions are obviously in the public interest. The only question then remains whether they are reasonable in nature

8. A reference to section 3 of the Ordinance, which has been reproduced earlier, shows that the local areas are to be specified by the Government by means of a notification issued under the Ordinance, and in such local areas the goats are to be eliminated in two stages, In the first phase a period of twelve months is allowed in which the grazing of goats is to be stopped, and then a further period of six months is allowed in which goats may be kept but not grazed in that area. In other words, a total period of eighteen months is allowed to the owners of goats to get rid of those goats in the local areas specified in the notification. It seems to us that this is a very reasonable regulation and is intended to lessen the hardship which may be felt by the owners of goats in the areas specified. The matter does not rest there, it is also possible to issue permits for the keeping of goats even in the areas specified in the notification. Considering all these factors we are of the opinion that the restrictions sought to be imposed by the Ordinance are reasonable and are in the public interest.

9. It was, however, contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the restrictions in the present case have the ultimate effect of completely depriving the petitioners of their right to hold property in goats and accordingly, they go beyond the ordinary meaning of the term `restriction' which is to be distinguished from the term `deprivation'. We do not see any substance in this contention, for what the Constitution safeguards is a right to property, but not a right to hold a particular item of property the holding of which may be against the public interest. In the present case, the Legislature has come to the conclusion that the holding of goats in certain areas is against the public interest, with the result that goats cannot be regarded as a legitimate item of property to be held in those areas. The restrictions imposed, therefore, by the Ordinance cannot be considered to be an infringement the fundamental right of every citizen to hold property. In this view we find support from the decision in Sheeshankar v. M. P. State Government (A I R 1951 Nag. 58) in which their Lordships were considering the question whether the res triction on the possession of intoxicating liquor infringed Article 19 (1) (f) of the Indian Constitution.

10. The learned counsel has further relied on clause 15 of the fundamental rights, namely, that all citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law. It is clear that once the conclusion is reached that the restrictions imposed by the Ordinance are reasonable and in the public interest, the Ordinance cannot be said to violate the principle of equality of all citizens before law, nor to deprive the petitioners of the equal protection of law. The guarantee against the denial of equal protection of laws does not mean that identically the same rules of law should be made applicable to all persons within the territory of Pakistan in spite of the difference of circumstances and conditions. All l it means is that there should be no discrimination between one person and another if, as regards the subject‑matter of the legislation, their position is the same. The Ordinance makes id clear that the restriction on the grazing and keeping of goats is necessary only in certain areas to be specified as local areas within the meaning of section 3 of the Ordinance, and in those areas all citizens are to be treated alike. There is no averment in the petition that there is discrimination between different citizens in the areas specified by means of a notification under section 3 of the Ordinance. The discrimination cannot be said to arise merely for the reason that the restrictions contemplated by the Ordinance are not applied to areas which are not notified under section 3 of the Ordinance, as in those areas the need for regulating the grazing and keeping of goats has obviously not arisen.

11. The next contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the Ordinance conflicts with the provisions of the Forest Act of 1927 which is Central Legislation. We have not been shown any provision in the Forest Act dealing with the question of keeping or grazing of goats and, therefore there is no question of any direct conflict between a Central Act and a Provincial Act. The learned counsel, however, contended that the Forest Act permits certain grazing rights to the petitioners which are now being negatived because of the Provincial Ordinance. The grazing rights, however, do not specifically relate to goats and they may p well be exercised by the petitioners in respect of other cattle. We do not, therefore, see any conflict between the two legislations.

12. The last contention put forward on behalf of the petitioners is that they were not heard before their area was included in the notification issued under section 3 of the Ordinance. The learned counsel has not elaborated as to how the right of being heard accrued to the petitioners The notifica tion under section 3 is to be issued by the Provincial Govern ment after forming its own appreciation and conclusions as to the areas in which the keeping and grazing of goats needs to be restricted and regulated. We do not see any requirement in law or in natural justice that residents of all such areas should be heard before a notification under section 3 of the Ordinance is issued.

13. For the reasons given above, we see no merit in the present petition which is dismissed. K. B. A. Petition dismissed.