Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1950 (5) TMI 26

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o carry on his business which is said to have been completely stopped by the respondent, the Munici- pal Board of Kairana. The facts shortly are as follows: The petitioner is an Aratia (commission agent) carrying on wholesale business in vegetables and fruits at Kairana in the District of Muzaffarnagar in the State of Uttar Pradesh. He has been carrying on this busi- ness for the last two years at a rented shop in Bazar Jama Masjid in the town of Kairana. Until recently there were no bye-laws of the respondent Board regulating the sale of vegetables and fruit within the limits of the municipality. In March, 1949. the respondent Board published certain proposed bye, laws made under section 298 of the U.P. Munic- ipalities Act, 1916. These .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ication or granting such license as was prayed for. The fact that the respondent Board had already auctioned the contract to Habib Ahmad might conceivably have had some bearing on this refusal to grant a license. to the petitioner. In the mean- time on the 28th January, 1950, a notice was served on the petitioner in the following terms: You are hereby informed that the Municipal Board, Kairana, have given the contract of wholesale purchase and sale of the vegetables, which is in force from the 1st day of January, 1950. It has been repeatedly promulgated, in the city by the beat of drum, through a Khakrob (sweeper) that excepting the contractor of vegetables the Municipal Board, Kairana, nobody shall deal in wholesale purchase and sale o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , is entirely contrary, for it is only the contractor Habib Ahmad who can carry on wholesale business at that place. The position, therefore, is that the petitioner cannot do any wholesale business either at the appointed market or at his own shop where he had admit- tedly been doing wholesale. business for two years prior to the bye-laws coming into force. In short, the petitioner's business has been wholly stopped and he is being prosecuted for alleged breach of the bye-laws. The above notice was headed as Notice under bye-law 2 of the bye-laws pertaining to contract of vegetables. Bye-law 2 runs thus: No person shall establish any new market or place for wholesale transaction without obtaining the previous per- mission of the B .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in clause (6) of that article. The position, howev- er, under bye-law 2 is that while it provided that no person shall establish a market for wholesale transactions in vegetables except with the permission of the Board, there is no bye-law authorising the respondent Board to issue the license. The nett result is that the prohibition of this bye-law, in the absence of any provision for issuing li- cense, becomes absolute. Further: bye-law 4 contemplates the grant of a monopoly to a contractor to deal in wholesale transactions at the place fixed as a market. Acting upon that provision, the respondent Board has granted monopoly to Habib Ahmad and has put it out of its power to grant a license to the petitioner to carry on wholesale business in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ers given to this Court under article 32 are much wider and are not confined to issuing prerogative writs only. The respondent Board having admittedly put it out of its power to grant a license and having regard to the fact that there is no specific bye-law authorising the issue of a license, we do not consider that the appeal under section 318 to the local Government which sanctioned the bye-laws is, in the circumstances of this case, an adequate legal remedy. We are satisfied that in this case the petitioner's fundamental rights have been infringed and he is entitled to have his grievance redressed. The proper order in such circumstances would be to direct the respondent Board not to prohibit the petitioner from carrying on the tra .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates