Gujarat HC DB Promptly Restores Ban On Non-Veg Eateries Near Somnath Temple
While acting most swiftly, we see that the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled State of Gujarat & Ors. v. Taj Restaurant Owner Aakib Aminbhai Khan & Ors. in R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 886 of 2026 In R/Special Civil Application/13977/2026 With Civil Application (For Stay) NO. 1 of 2026 In R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 886 of 2026 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: GJHC240846182026 that was pronounced most recently on October 30, 2026 has restored a ban on the preparation, sale and storage of non-vegetarian food around designated pilgrimage routes near the Somnath temple.
So the ban will now operate as directed in this leading case! It must be noted that a Division Bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice (ACJ) of Gujarat High Court Hon’ble Mr ACJ Manash Ranjan and Hon’ble Mr Justice Nirzar S Desai stayed an order after the State moved in appeal against the order that had been passed by a Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Ms Justice Nisha M Thakore hours after the latter had passed the judgment lifting the ban by allowing the petitions that had been filed by owners of hotels and restaurants in Prabhas Patan in Gir Somnath district and set aside a notification that had been issued by the District Magistrate on August 10 and had also rejected the Gujarat State Government’s request to stay operation of the judgment.
Judgment And Legal Background
At the very outset, this concise, courageous, composed and cogent judgment authored by Acting Chief Justice (ACJ) of Gujarat High Court Hon’ble Mr ACJ Manash Ranjan for a Division Bench of Gujarat High Court comprising of himself and Hon’ble Mr Justice Nirzar S Desai sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that,
“Heard learned Advocate General Mr. Kamal Trivedi with Government Pleader Mr. G.H.Virk with AGP Mr. Dharitri Pancholi with AGP Mr. Brijensingh Thakur for the appellants and learned advocate Mr. Asarar L Mansuri for respondent (original petitioners) Nos.1 to 6.”
Previous Litigation And Pending Proceedings
As we see, the Division Bench then discloses in para 2 stating that,
“With regard to the similar issue in this appeal, it is brought to the notice of the Court by learned Advocate General that original petitioners No.3 to 6 earlier preferred Special Civil Application No.14356 of 2018 which is still pending for adjudication wherein, learned Advocate General has submitted that no stay order is in force.”
District Magistrate’s Notification And Ban
To put things in perspective, the Division Bench envisages in para 3 observing that,
“On 10.07.2026, the District Magistrate, Gir-Somnath issued a Preliminary Notification under Section 33(1)(w) of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951 prohibiting the preparation, sale and storage of all meat/meat-mutton/fish and non-vegetarian dishes at lorry stalls, shops, restaurants, hotels on both sides of the public roads specifying the places mentioned therein and issued a preliminary notification dated 10.07.2026 seeking objections, if any from the public holding the time limit of 30 days of the publication of the said notification. Subsequent to that, by the said authority i.e. The District Magistrate, Gir-Somnath issued a Final Notification dated 10.08.2026 under sub-section (1) (w) of Section 33 of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951 whereby the authorities concerned permanently banned preparation, sale and storage of all meat/meat-mutton/fish and non-vegetarian dishes from –
Areas Covered By The Notification
| S. No. | Designated Area |
|---|---|
| 1 | Balaka Temple to Bhidiya Circle |
| 2 | From the Bhidiya Circle to the Shankh Circle |
| 3 | From Shankh Circle to Safari Circle |
| 4 | From Safari Circle to Prajapati Dharamshala three roads |
| 5 | From Gita Mandir to Hamirji Circle |
| 6 | From Hamirji Circle to Shankh Circle |
| 7 | All areas within 500 meters of Somnath Temple |
Challenge To The Final Notification
As it turned out, the Division Bench enunciates in para 4 laying bare that,
“Aggrieved by the said Final Notification dated 10.08.2026 made by the District Magistrate, Gir Somnath dated 10.08.2026, the respondents herein preferred the Special Civil Application No. 13977 of 2026 and challenged the same before the learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge after hearing the matter, kept the matter for orders and the judgment was pronounced today i.e. 30.10.2026 in the second half (around 03:00 PM) and allowed the petition.
Though the decision was pronounced since it is pronounced today only till the circulation of this Letters Patent Appeal was sought for and even at the time when the matter was heard the judgment was not available or uploaded, the matter was heard looking to the sensitivity involved in the issue on hand as the learned GP Mr. Virk made a special mention to take up this Letters Patent Appeal against the order pronounced by the learned Single Judge and hence, the permission was granted to circulate the Letters Patent Appeal and accordingly, the Court assembled at around 5:30 pm and took up the matter and heard the Letters Patent Appeal.”
State Government’s Arguments And Judicial Precedents
Quite significantly, it would be instructive to note that the Division Bench hastens to add in para 5 noting that,
“Learned Advocate General Mr. Kamal Trivedi while supporting the Final Notification issued by the District Magistrate, Gir Somnath under Section 33(1)(w) of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951, learned Advocate General Mr. Kamal Trivedi appearing for the appellants – State relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
(i) Om Prakash and Others v. State of U.P. and Others, reported in (2004) 3 SCC 402,
(ii) Rajinder Kumar and Others v. State of Punjab and Others, reported in 2026 SCC OnLine P&H 9990, and
(iii) Public Interest Litigation No. 453 of 2022 (Shahida v. State of U.P. and 3 Others), decided on 28.03.2022 by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court and submitted vide all these three judgments the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as two High Courts have held that the reasonable restrictions like the restrictions issued by way of notification dated 10.08.2026 are permitted under law and the aforesaid view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court still holds the field and the recent decisions of Punjab and Haryana High Court and Allahabad High Court are either not challenged or not interfered with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.”
Division Bench Observations on Devotees and Public Order
More significantly, the Division Bench points out in para 6 that, “In addition to the above submissions, it was contended that considering the forthcoming festival of Deepavali and Gujarati New Year and considering the fact that there will be holidays during this period, lakhs and lakhs of devotees are likely to visit Somnath Temple and in its adjoining religious areas and if the assembly therein is allowed to take meat/fish and non-vegetarian dishes in those specified areas it is not only going to hurt the sentiments of the devotees and believers of Somnath Temple and its adjoining religious areas that is likely to cause inconvenience and annoyance, risk, danger or damage to the places in concern and its vicinity by such assembly.”
Key Reasoning Behind the Gujarat High Court Interim Order
Most significantly, the Division Bench encapsulates in para 9 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “We have heard learned Advocate General Mr. Kamal Trivedi appearing with learned Government Pleader Mr. Virk as well as learned Advocate Mr. Mansuri, who appeared on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 6 and considered the submissions made by them, perused the record and considered the legal position canvassed by the learned Advocate General Mr. Trivedi. 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 and therefore, considering the aforesaid submission as well as considering the fact that during the forthcoming Deepavali and the Gujarati New Year large number of devotees are likely to visit Somnath Temple, the Final Notification dated 10.08.2026 issued by the District Magistrate, Gir Somnath under Section 33(1)(w) of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951 shall remain in force till the returnable date and the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 13977 of 2026 today (30.10.2026) shall remain stayed until further orders.”
Gujarat High Court Directions and Notice
Equally significant is that the Division Bench then directs and holds in para 10 of this recent judgment that, “Issue Notice returnable by 25.11.2026. Appellants shall take steps for service of notice on the respondent No. 7 by speed post within the next five working days, as well as by direct service. The Final Notification dated 10.08.2026 issued by the District Magistrate, Gir Somnath under Section 33(1)(w) of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951 shall remain in force till the returnable date and the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 13977 of 2026 today (30.10.2026) shall remain stayed until further orders.”
Service of Notice on the Respondents
Be it noted, the Division Bench notes in para 11 that, “Since learned advocate Mr. Asarar L. Mansuri has appeared on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 6 and he waives the service of notice on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 6. Direct service for Respondent No.7.”
Next Hearing Date and Related Proceedings
Finally, the Division Bench then aptly concludes by directing and holding in para 12 that, “List this matter on 25.11.2026 along with the Special Civil Application No. 14356 of 2018 that was preferred by the present respondent Nos.3 to 6 as petitioners.”
Conclusion: Gujarat High Court Restores Ban Near Somnath Temple
All told, we thus see that the Gujarat High Court Division Bench has acted most promptly to restore the ban on non-veg eateries near Somnath temple by overturning the judgment delivered earlier by a Single Judge Bench as mentioned hereinabove. It thus merits noting that the Single Judge’s verdict had not yet been published on the Gujarat High Court website when the State’s appeal came up for hearing before the Division Bench. Unless and until this Division Bench judgment is overturned by the Apex Court, it has to be implemented, and all have to abide by what has been ruled by the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court. There can be just no denying it!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A – 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh
Important Links
- Lawyers in India
- Copyright Registration in India
- Caveat Filing in Supreme Court of India
- Mutual Consent Divorce in Delhi/NCR : WhatsApp 9650499965
