Gujarat High Court: Restores Somnath Non-Veg Ban After Swift Appeal

• A Gujarat High Court division bench reinstated a ban on non-vegetarian food near Somnath Temple.
• This decision reversed a single-judge's order that had lifted the prohibition just hours earlier.
• The State of Gujarat immediately appealed the initial ruling, leading to the swift appellate review.
• The ban, implemented by the District Magistrate, covers areas within 500 meters of the temple.
• The division bench, including ACJ Manash Ranjan Pathak, heard the appeal barely two-and-a-half hours after Justice Nisha M Thakore's initial verdict.

This swift intervention by the appellate court underscores the potential for immediate judicial review in cases involving significant public interest or government policy.

The Gujarat High Court's division bench recently reinstated a prohibition on the preparation, sale, and storage of non-vegetarian food items in the vicinity of the Somnath Temple, overturning a single-judge's decision just hours after it was issued. This swift intervention by the appellate court underscores the potential for immediate judicial review in cases involving significant public interest or government policy. The ruling came in the case of "State of Gujarat & Ors. v Taj Restaurant Owner Aakib Aminbhai Khan & Ors.", where the State successfully appealed an earlier judgment. Acting Chief Justice (ACJ) Manash Ranjan Pathak, alongside Justice Nirzar S Desai, presided over the division bench that stayed the single-judge's order. The State of Gujarat moved to appeal the verdict almost immediately after it was pronounced, demonstrating a clear intent to challenge the lifting of the ban. This rapid legal maneuver saw the division bench convene to hear the State's appeal at approximately 5:30 pm, a mere two and a half hours after Justice Nisha M Thakore delivered her initial ruling around 3 pm on the same day.

The underlying prohibition, which became the subject of this legal dispute, originated from a series of notifications issued by the District Magistrate. A preliminary notification was first released on July 10, inviting public objections to a proposed ban on the preparation, sale, and storage of meat, fish, and other non-vegetarian dishes. This proposed restriction was intended for various commercial establishments, including shops, restaurants, hotels, and roadside stalls within designated zones. Following the period for public feedback, a final notification was officially issued on August 10. This definitive order implemented the prohibition across seven specific stretches and areas, notably encompassing all locations situated within 500 meters of the revered Somnath Temple. This comprehensive Somnath Temple non-vegetarian food prohibition aimed to regulate food offerings in the sacred precinct, prompting a legal challenge from local business owners.

Restaurant owners operating within the affected region subsequently filed a petition before the Gujarat High Court, contesting the legality of the District Magistrate's prohibition. On October 30, a single-judge, Justice Nisha M Thakore, ruled in favor of these petitioners, effectively allowing their challenge and lifting the ban. This decision, however, proved to be short-lived. The Gujarat government, keen to maintain the Somnath non-veg ban, promptly filed an appeal against Justice Thakore's order on the very same day it was pronounced. Remarkably, the single-judge's verdict had not even been formally published on the High Court's official website when the State's appeal was taken up for consideration by the division bench. This expedited appellate process highlights the judicial system's capacity for rapid review, particularly when state actions or significant policy decisions are at stake, leading to the Gujarat High Court division bench appeal and subsequent restoration of the ban.

This swift reversal by a division bench, hours after a single-judge order, highlights the potential for immediate appellate intervention in high-profile or government-challenged cases. Lawyers should advise clients that initial rulings, especially against state actions, may face rapid review and potential stays, necessitating preparedness for expedited appeals and a comprehensive understanding of the multi-tiered judicial process.

Source: Original reporting via legal news sources