Defending the restrictions imposed after the Walled City of Amritsar was declared a holy city, Amritsar Municipal Corporation Amritsar has told the Punjab and Haryana High Court that a survey revealed approximately 44 premises were engaged in the trade of meat products in the notified area.The submission came during the hearing of a petition challenging the Punjab Government’s notification declaring the Walled City of Amritsar a holy city and the consequential restrictions imposed on the sale and trade of fish, meat and raw meat products in the area.In the affidavit placed before the High Court bench of Justice Vikram Aggarwal and Justice Ramesh Kumari, the civic body stated that Punjab government issued notification dated December 15, 2025, vide which the Walled City of Amritsar, the city of Shri Anandpur Sahib and the city of Talwandi Sabo were declared holy cities.Thereafter, the department of animal husbandry issued prohibitory orders on December 23, 2025, imposing a complete prohibition on the sale, display and storage of meet and meet products within the walled city of Amritsar with immediate effect. In the ensuing survey, it was found that approximately “44 number of premises were engaged in trade of meat products”The affidavit added notices were issued to all shopkeepers and traders dealing in meat products in the Walled City of Amritsar following the notification dated December 15, 2025.  The petitioner was also served a notice on March 24 directing him to stop the sale, use, storage and display of meat products by March 31.The Municipal Corporation asserted that despite the notice, the petitioner did not stop the sale, use, storage and display of the products. It added that necessary action was taken and the petitioner’s premises were sealed following a joint inspection carried out on April 20 by officials of the Municipal Corporation Amritsar, the Animal Husbandry Department and the Civil Surgeon, Amritsar.The affidavit further stated that the petitioner’s trade licence had already expired on March 31, 2025, and he was carrying on the business without a valid trade licence. Taking up the affidavit, the Bench fixed July 3 as the next date of hearing in the matter. The petitioner had earlier questioned the notification dated December 15, 2025, along with subsequent prohibitory orders, communications and directions restricting the sale, storage, use, display and trade of fish, meat and raw meat products within the Walled City limits.The petitioner had contended that the impugned action had effectively resulted in a complete prohibition on an otherwise lawful and licensed trade without statutory authority, a rehabilitation policy, a relocation mechanism or a reasonable transition period.It was submitted that the firm had regularly deposited the requisite licence fee and municipal charges and was operating lawfully under a valid municipal licence. Despite this, its business premises were allegedly sealed and coercive action initiated without furnishing any statutory order or authority authorising such action.The petition also raised constitutional questions relating to the limits of executive power and invokes the fundamental right to carry on trade and business under Article 19(1)(g), the right to livelihood under Article 21 and the guarantee of equality under Article 14. It was argued that any restriction on fundamental rights must have clear statutory backing and satisfy the tests of reasonableness and proportionality.The petitioner had further contended that the expressions “Holy City” and “Walled City” had not been defined under any statute, rule or regulation and that executive notifications, by themselves, cannot create enforceable civil disabilities or impose blanket prohibitions on lawful commercial activities.It was alleged that the impugned measures selectively target traders operating within the notified area without any intelligible differentia or rational basis.