Gujarat HC Stays Order Quashing Ban on Non-Vegetarian Food Near Somnath Temple [Read Order]

Ahmedabad: The Gujarat High Court has, by an interim order passed on the same day, stayed a Single Judge’s judgment that had allowed a challenge to the Gir-Somnath District Magistrate’s ban on preparing, selling and storing meat, fish and non-vegetarian dishes in and around the Somnath Temple, and has directed that the notification will remain in force till the returnable date.

A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak and Justice Nirzar S. Desai passed the order on 30.10.2026 in a Letters Patent Appeal by the State of Gujarat against M/s Taj Restaurant, its owner Aakib Aminbhai Khan and others, who had challenged the notification in Special Civil Application No. 13977 of 2026.

The District Magistrate, Gir-Somnath, issued a preliminary notification on 10.07.2026 under Section 33(1)(w) of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951 inviting objections within 30 days, followed by a final notification on 10.08.2026. It permanently bans the preparation, sale and storage of all meat, mutton, fish and non-vegetarian dishes at lorry stalls, shops, restaurants and hotels on both sides of specified roads, running from Balaka Temple to Bhidiya Circle, Bhidiya Circle to Shankh Circle, Shankh Circle to Safari Circle, the stretch up to Prajapati Dharamshala, Gita Mandir to Hamirji Circle, Hamirji Circle to Shankh Circle, and all areas within 500 metres of the Somnath Temple.

The Single Judge, the Division Bench recorded, reserved orders and pronounced the judgment allowing the petition at about 3 PM on 30.10.2026. Since the judgment had not been uploaded, and the appeal was mentioned specially by the Government Pleader owing to the sensitivity of the issue, the Court assembled at about 5:30 PM to hear the appeal. The Single Judge’s reasoning is therefore not part of this order.

Advocate General Kamal Trivedi defended the notification and relied on the Supreme Court in Om Prakash v. State of U.P. (2004) 3 SCC 402, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Rajinder Kumar v. State of Punjab (2026 SCC OnLine P&H 9990) and the Allahabad High Court in Shahida v. State of U.P. (PIL No. 453 of 2022, decided on 28.03.2022). He argued that these decisions hold such reasonable restrictions to be permissible and that the Punjab and Haryana and Allahabad decisions were either not challenged or not interfered with by the Supreme Court. He also submitted that with Deepavali and the Gujarati New Year approaching, lakhs of devotees would visit, and allowing non-vegetarian food in the specified areas would hurt their sentiments and cause inconvenience, annoyance, risk, danger or damage in the vicinity.

Advocate Asarar L. Mansuri, for the respondents, submitted that Section 33(1)(w) does not apply, as it relates only to places of public amusement or entertainment. The Court reproduced the provision, which covers licensing or controlling places of public amusement or entertainment, prohibiting the keeping of places of public amusement, entertainment or assembly to prevent obstruction, inconvenience, annoyance, risk, danger or damage to residents or passengers in the vicinity, and regulating entrance and exit at such places.

Without deciding that question, the Bench observed:

“It is also noteworthy that learned Advocate Mr. Mansuri could not point out any single judgment, whereby a contrary view is taken either by the Hon’ble Supreme Court or by any other High Court…”

Taking that, and the large number of devotees expected during Deepavali and the Gujarati New Year, into account, the Court directed that the final notification of 10.08.2026 “shall remain in force till the returnable date” and that the Single Judge’s order of 30.10.2026 “shall remain stayed until further orders”. Notice was issued, returnable on 25.11.2026, with Mr. Mansuri accepting service for respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and the State to serve respondent No. 7 by speed post and directly.

The Court also noted that the original petitioners Nos. 3 to 6 had earlier filed Special Civil Application No. 14356 of 2018 on a similar issue, which is still pending with no stay in force, and directed that the appeal be listed along with it on 25.11.2026.

Appearances:

For the Appellants: Mr. Kamal Trivedi, Advocate General, with Mr. G.H. Virk, Government Pleader, Mr. Dharitri Pancholi, AGP and Mr. Brijensingh Thakur, AGP.

For Respondent Nos. 1 to 6: Mr. Asarar L. Mansuri, Advocate.

Case Title: State of Gujarat & Ors. vs. M/s Taj Restaurant Owner Aakib Aminbhai Khan & Ors., R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 886 of 2026

[Read Order]