TMI Blog1963 (9) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Tehsildar of Tanda (Cr. Case No. 141/1960). The case against the appellant was that he was running a market in which vegetables, fruits, fish and grains were sold. It was alleged that under the relevant bye-laws, the appellant was bound to take a licence and since he had failed to do so, he had committed a breach of the said bye-laws and hid thus rendered himself liable to be punished under section 299(1) of the United Provinces Municipalities Act, 1916 (No. II of 1916) (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The said Tehsildar held that the prosecution had failed to prove the fact that in the market established on the plot belonging to the appellant, vegetables, fruits and fish were sold; evidence showed that only grains were sold in the shops run in that market. The Tehsildar further held that there was nothing in the Act which empowered respondent No. 2 to make bye-laws for the running of a purely grain market, and so, his conclusion was that the relevant bye-laws which were alleged to have been contravened were ultra vires. That is why the Tehsildar acquitted the appellant. Respondent No. 2 then preferred an appeal against the said order of acquittal in the High Court of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and selling, inter alia, grains where more than four stalls or shops are kept on any plot of land owned by the same owner or owners, or where wholesale transaction by way of auction or sale of more than twenty maunds is carried on. It is thus clear that if on any plot, more than four stalls or shops are kept and they sell grains, they constitute a market within bye-law 3(a). It has been found by both the courts below in the present case that on the plot belonging to the appellant, more than four shops are kept and they sell grains. Thus, there can be no doubt that these shops constitute a market within bye-law 3(a). It is not disputed that if bye-law 3(a) is valid, the appellant would be under an obligation to obtain a licence as required by it. Bye-law 3(b) provides that no person shall sell or expose for sale any fruit, vegetable or grain in any market or shop (not licenced by the Board) and not being a Municipal market or shop. Bye-law 4 prescribes conditions which have to be satisfied before a licence can be granted. Bye-law 5 specifies the officer who can act as a licensing officer. Bye-law 6 requires that the place occupied by the shops shall be pro- perly paved and draine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pecial resolution may, and where required by the State Govt. shall, make bye-laws applicable to the whole or any part of the municipality, consistent with this Act and with any rule, for the purpose of promoting or maintaining the health, safety, and convenience of the inhabitants of the municipality and for the furtherance of municipal administration under this Act. Section 298(2)-F which consists of six sub-clauses deals with bye-laws which can be made in respect of markets, slaughterhouses, sale of food, etc. The two sub-clauses of s. 298(2)-F which are material read thus :- (d) Providing for the establishment, and except so far as provision may be made by bye-laws under sub-had (c) for the regulation and inspection of markets and slaughter-houses, of livery stables, of encamping grounds of sarais, of flour- mills, of bakeries, of places for the manufacture, preparation or sale of specified articles of food or drink, or for keeping or exhibiting animals for sale or hire or animals of which the produce is sold, and of places of public entertainment or resort, and for the proper and cleanly conduct of business therein;(d ) Prescribing the conditions subject to which, and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvalid because they are inconsistent with s. 241(1). The next point to consider is whether these bye-laws are justified by s. 298. We have already read clauses (d) (dd) of s. 298(2)-F. Section 298(2)-F deals, inter alia, with markets, and in the absence of any definition of the word market prescribed by the Act, it would be legitimate to take the word market occurring in s. 298 (2)-F (d) in its dictionary meaning. If four or more shops are selling grains on the plot belonging to the appellant, they make a market in the ordinary sense of the word and clause (d) confers power on the Board to make bye-laws providing for the establishment, and for the regulation and inspection of markets. There can be no doubt that the power to regulate the establishment of markets which is specified in this clause would sustain the relevant bye law framed by respondent No. 2. Mr. Misra attempted to argue that the markets referred to in this clause must be markets run for the sale of specified articles of food or drink, or keeping or exhibiting animals for sale, and he suggested that this condition was not satisfied by the market in question. In our opinion, this argument is entirely misconceived ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 298(1). These latter clauses merely illustrate and do not exhaust all the powers conferred on the Board,so that any cases not falling within the powers specified by section 298(2) may well be protected by s. 298(1), provided of course, the impugned bye-laws can be justified by refer- ence to the requirements of s. 298(1). There can be no doubt that the impugned bye-laws in regard to the markets framed by respondent No. 2 are for the furtherance of municipal administration under the Act, and so, would attract the provisions of s. 298(1). Therefore we are satisfied that the High Court was right in coming to the conclusion that the impugned bye-laws are valid. It is true that the preamble to the bye-laws refers to clauses A (a), (d) (c) and J (d) of s. 298 and these clauses undoubtedly are inapplicable; but once it is shown that the impugned bye-laws are within the competence of respondent No. 2, the fact that preamble to the bye-laws mentions clauses which are not relevant, would not affect the validity of the bye-laws. The validity of the bye-laws must be tested by reference to the question as to whether the Board had the power to make those bye-laws. If the power is otherwise es ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
