The restriction on selling and storing non-vegetarian food in designated areas around Gujarat’s Somnath Temple remains in force after the Supreme Court did not issue any order altering the stay granted by the Gujarat High Court, according to a report by Divya Bhaskar citing the petitioners’ lawyer. The Supreme Court has directed that the appeal be decided expeditiously within two months.
The dispute involves six non-vegetarian restaurant owners who challenged a state government notification restricting the sale and storage of non-vegetarian food in specific parts of the Somnath area. The restaurant owners first approached the Gujarat High Court against the notification and later moved the Supreme Court after a single judge issued a stay in the matter.
As no separate order was passed by the Supreme Court on the stay during the hearing, the High Court’s interim position continues to apply, the report said. This means the restriction remains subject to the directions and proceedings of the Gujarat High Court while the appeal is taken up for an early decision.
The update was attributed to Asrar Mansuri, the lawyer representing the petitioners. According to him, the Supreme Court directed that the appeal be disposed of within two months. The direction sets an expected timeframe for the next stage of the legal dispute but does not, based on the supplied report, finally decide whether the state government notification is valid.
The case also includes a separate administrative issue raised during the High Court proceedings. The petitioners alleged that, on 7 October, the mamlatdar obtained written undertakings from the six restaurant owners at a police station. Under those undertakings, the owners allegedly agreed not to sell non-vegetarian food in the future and to trade only in vegetarian products.
The alleged collection of these undertakings took place on the same day as the first hearing before the High Court. The High Court questioned the state government about why the mamlatdar had obtained the restaurant owners’ signatures while the case was already being heard. The supplied report does not state that the court has reached a final finding on the conduct of the official or on the validity of the undertakings.
The dispute therefore concerns both the food-sale restriction and the manner in which it was implemented at the local level. The government notification applies to specified areas rather than, according to the report, the entire state. The petitioners’ challenge keeps the question of the state’s power to impose and enforce such restrictions before the courts.
The Supreme Court’s direction for an early disposal is the next recorded development in the matter. Until the appeal and the related proceedings produce further orders, the High Court’s stay remains operative and the restrictions described in the report continue to govern the six businesses involved in the case.
