LexPYARE LAL ETC versus NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
PYARE LAL ETC.
1·.
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAi~ COMMITTEE & ANR.
April 20, 1967
[K. N. WANCHOO. C.J., V. BHARGAVA AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.]
1'1111j11b Municipll/ Act 1911 (3 of 1911), s.1·, 173, 188-Power to re-
gult1te sale of edibles on public s1rects-St1·eet
vendors
111/iether have
fruulr11ne111al right to carry an the{r ·1rade-Food Adt1lteratio11 Act, 1954
mu/ R11/e.1" mnde tliere1111dc1"-T/ie1r <'fleet on
powers under s. 17) of
.lfo11idp11/ Act.
The petitioners were vendors of polulo chops unJ other edibles which
1hcy sold on public streets. The New Delhi Municipal Commiltce Issued
them licences for •omc time and later on tried to aivc them nltcrnntil'o
'ite.1 for cnrryin~ on their tru<le.
Flnnlly however on 30th April 19~5
ir pn·'9ed 11 resolution hunnln' l'hc ~nlc uf cooked edibles on public str~t•.
The vendors flied u petition tor writ in tho Hi~h Court which fnllcd. With
specinl lc:wc they uppc:ilcd to this Court.
1t wn1 urged on bchnlf of the appellants that : Ii) in the ab:!cne< "f
hyc-Juws framed under s. 188 of the Punjab Municipal Act the Munici-
pul Committee had 110 power under s. 173 of the Act to prohibit !'heir
rrude; (ii) After the passing of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Ac!,
1954 the powers under s. l 73 could not he used to ·regulate the sak of
food from the purity aspect; (iii) the power of rhe Municipality under
s. 173 \VUS only to rcgut11c the trade but it coulll not he used to con-
travene the fund<1mcntnl right of the petitioners to carry on their husi ..
nc~s.
HELD : (i) The powers of !he Municipality under s. 173 to ;i!low
encroachments on public street. and to permit sale of food or stalls to he
sci up was meant for special occasions like festivals, etc. Seclion
188
wa• not designed for !he purpo•c of frnming hyc-luws to rcgulnlc
the
condition' on which persons like the pclitioncrs
could he nllowcJ to
carry on lrndc on puhlic strc'Cls and thus crente permanent unhygienic
con<Jilions. This should never huve hccn permitted by the nrnnic1p"lity.
17.13 Hi
(ii) The object of the Food Adulteration Act wus that food which
the public would buy wus prepared packed
nnd stored under sanitary
conditions so a< not to he injurious to the health of the people consum-
ing it. The rules made thereunder would override rul"' or bye-luws
made hy " municipulity only if they covered the sumc
flcld.
Under
s. 173(!) of the Punjab Municipal Act. however. it was open to the
Municipal C'ommiuec to take steps to prevent sale of any cooked fotid
ho\\evl!r pure if the $<lie thereof on pubJic streets would offer ohstruction
to passers-by or create insanitary conditions. 1755 D-Fl
(iii) Out of symoathv for the
meet hawkers
and squatters
the
N.D.M.C'. had permilled the continuance of the trade for a long time.
Hut no objcc1 ion could he taken to their exercise of power under s. 173
Of the Pun/"ab Municipal Act to eradicate the evil, The power was con-
llncJ mere y to pm·cnting obstruction
to traffic.
Every person has a
right· to P"'' and rcpass along a public slreet. But he cannot be beard
to say that he has a fundamental right to enrrv on street trading nnd
particulnrly in a manner which is hound to create in•anitary and un-
hygicne C<>nditions in the ncighhourhood. 1758 A-Ill
.--
748
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1967] 3 s.c.R.
Roberts v. Hopwood, [1925] A.C. 578, Pyx Granite Co. v. Ministry
of Rousing, [1958] 1 All E.R. 625, C. S, S. Motor Service v.
Madras
Sr.1te, A.I.R. 1~3 Macl. 279 and Westminister Corporation v. London
and North Western Railll'ay [1905] A.C. 426, referred to.
CIVIL APPEi.LATE JuR1so1cnoN : Civil App~als Nos.
486-
492 of 1967.
Appeals by special leave from the orders dated August 4.
1966 of the Punjab High Court, Circuit Bench at Delhi in Letters
Patent Appeals Nos. 84-D, 70-D, 72-D, 73-D, 71-D, ~5-D and
79-D of 1966 respectively.
Madan Bhatia and D. Gob1ml/1un, for the appellants (in all
the appeals).
Bishan Narain and Sardar Bahadur, for respondent No. 1 (in
C. As. Nos. 486-488 of 1967) and the respondent (in C.A. No.
489 of 1967).
Sardar Bahailur, for respondent No. 1 (in C. As. Nos. 490-
492 of 1967).
R. N. Sachthey, for respondent No. 2 (in C. As. Nos. 486-
488 and 490 to 492 of 1967).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
.
Mitter, J.
These are seven appeals, by special leave, from a
a judgment and order of the Punjab High Court in
a Letters
Patent Appeal from a judgment and order of a sinExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.