The Gujarat government on Wednesday defended its ban on the sale and storage of non-vegetarian food within a 500-metre radius of the Somnath Temple, telling the High Court that the right to conduct business cannot override the religious, historical and cultural character of a pilgrimage destination, news agency PTI reported.
The submission came before a bench of Justice Nisha M Thakor, which was hearing a petition filed by six restaurant owners challenging the state government's notification imposing the restrictions around the temple in Gir Somnath district.
According to the report, defending the ban, government pleader GH Virk argued that Somnath could not be viewed merely as a commercial town while disregarding its religious, historical and spiritual significance to millions of Hindus across the country.
Nobody could claim an absolute fundamental right to sell non-vegetarian food at the temple's doorstep or along the sacred routes used by millions of Hindu devotees, Virk submitted.
The state government told the court that more than 1.16 crore devotees had visited the Somnath Temple in the preceding nine months. It also cited Rishikesh, Haridwar, Amritsar and Mathura-Vrindavan as pilgrimage destinations where similar restrictions on the sale of non-vegetarian food were in place.
The government maintained that the restrictions did not prevent restaurants from continuing to operate as vegetarian establishments at their existing premises. They could also sell non-vegetarian food outside the specifically notified areas, subject to applicable laws, the report added.
The six restaurant owners have challenged the prohibition, arguing that they have operated their establishments lawfully for several decades and possess valid licences. They have also contended that their eateries are located well beyond the immediate periphery of the temple.
The petitioners argued that the district magistrate had exceeded the authority vested in the office by imposing a permanent prohibition on an otherwise lawful trade.
The restaurants fall within one of the six prohibited zones specified in the state government's notification issued in August. The notification permanently bars the sale and storage of non-vegetarian food items in the designated areas. The petitioners alleged that authorities had forced them to shut their establishments.
Challenging the notification on constitutional grounds, the restaurant owners said the ban violated Article 19(1)(g), which guarantees citizens the fundamental right to practise any profession or carry on any occupation, trade or business.
They argued that authorities could not prevent a person from pursuing a lawful trade or livelihood without assigning a reason for the restriction.
(With inputs from PTI)