RASHID AHMED versus THE MUNICIPAL BOARD, KAIRANA, THE UNION OF INDIA AND THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation: [1950] 1 S.C.R. 566 · Decided: 19-05-1950 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HARILAL JEKISUNDAS KANIA · Disposal: Case Allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1950 
May 19 
566 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1950 l 
RASHID AHMED 
fl. 
THE MUNICIPAL BOARD, 
KAIRANA. 
THE UNION OF INDIA and THE STATE OF 
UTT AR PRADESH : 
lNTERVENERS. 
[SHRt HARILAL KANIA C. J., SAtYm FAzL Au, 
PATA>iJALI SASTRI MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN 
MuKHERJEA and DAs J J. J 
Constitution of India, Arts. 19 (1), 19 (6), 32-Fundamental 
right to carry on trade-Reasonableness 
of restrictions imposed-
U. P. Municipalities 
Act, 1916, s. 241 
(2) (a)-Municipal bye/aw 
prohibiting carrying on u1holesale trade without permission-Absence 
of provisions for issuing license to old traders-Provisfons permitting 
grant of monopoly-Lt:gality of bye/aw. 
Byelaw No. 2 of the byclaws of a municipal board, which 
came into force 
on the 1st January, 1950, provided that 
0 no 
person 
shall establish any new 
n1arket or 
place for wholesale 
transactions 
without 
obtaining the 
previous 
permission 
of the 
board, and no person shall sell or expose for sale any vegetable, 
fruit, etc. at any Place other than -that fixed by the board for. the 
purpose"; and byelaw No. 4 permitted the grant of a monopoly 
to a contractor to deal 
in 
wholesale 
transactions 
at 
the place 
fixed 
as a market. 
In anticipation of these byclaws 
the 
mono-
poly right to do wholesale 
business in vegetable for three years 
was 
auctioned 
by 
the 
municipal 
board 
and granted to 
the 
highest bidder and a place was also fixed as 
the market where 
such business could be carried on. The petitioner who had been 
carrying on wholesale 
business in vegetables at a rented shop 
with:.o the mtµticipality for two years before the byelaws came 
into force applO!:d for a license to carry on his business at his 
shop but this 
was rejected on the ground that there was no 
provision 
in the byelaws 
authorising 
the 
grant of 
any . such 
license, and he was prosecuted for contravention of th'c byelaws. 
He applied under Art. 32 of the Constitution for the enforcement 
of 
his 
fundamental 
right as a citizen to carry on his busincsa 
which was gaaranteed by Art. 19 (1) of the Constitution. 
Held 
(i) . that the 
prohibition 
in byelaw 
No. 
2 became 
absolute in the 
absence of 
provision authorising the issue of a 
license, and inasmuch as the municipal board had, further, put 
it out· of its power to grant a license to the petitioner by granting 
a monopoly, the restrictions imposed 
\Vere not reasonable within 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
567 
the meaning of Art. 19 ( 6) of the Constitution, and the byelaws 
were 
accordingly 
void and 
the prosecution 
of 
the 
petitioner 
illegal, (ii) that the fact that the Constitution came into force only 
after the byelaws had come into force did not affect the peti-
tioner's right to carry on his business. 
Held also, that an appeal under section 318 of the U. P. 
Municipalities Act was not _in the circumstances an adequate legal 
remedy the_ existence of which would disentitlc the petitioner from 
maintaining this application. 
ORIGINAL JuRISDICTION: Petition No. X of 1950 
This was an application under article 32 (1) of the 
Constitution for 
the 
enforcement 
of the applicant's 
fundamental right to carry on his 
busin~ss which was 
guaranteed by article 19 ( 1) of the Constitution. 
The 
facts of the case appear in the judgment. 
Nur-ud-din, for the petitioner. 
Radhelal Agaruiala, for the opposite p~rty. 
M. C. Setalvad, 
Attorney-General for India, ( S. M. 
Sikri, with him), for the Union of India. 
Pearylal Banerji, 
Advocate-General of U. P. ( Shri 
Ram, with him), for the State of Uttar Pradesh. 
1950. 
May 19. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
DAs J.~I am reading the judgment of the Court. 
This i§ an application under article 32 of the Con-
stitution of India made by Rashid Ahmed for enforce-
ment of his fundamental 
right 
to carry on his busi-
ness which 
is said to have _been completely stopped 
by the respondent, 
the Municipal--
Board of K.airana. 
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 
1950 
Rashid Ahnid 
v. 
Municipal Board, 
Kair1111a 
Dos]. 
11150 
Das]. 
SUPREME COL?RT REPORT~ 
f 1950 J 
State of Uttar Pradesh. 
He 
has been carrying on 
this business 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 
v

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.