TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court upholds business rights, deems monopoly laws unconstitutional.</h1> <h3>RASHID AHMED Versus. THE MUNICIPAL BOARD, KAIRANA. THE UNION OF INDIA</h3> The Supreme Court, in a case concerning the enforcement of the fundamental right to carry on business, ruled in favor of the petitioner, an Aratia engaged ... - Issues:Enforcement of fundamental right to carry on business under Article 32 of the Constitution of India; Rejection of license application by Municipal Board; Prohibition of wholesale business by respondent Board; Constitutional validity of bye-laws under Article 19 (1)(g); Availability of legal remedy under Section 318 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916.Analysis:The judgment by the Supreme Court dealt with an application under Article 32 of the Constitution of India regarding the enforcement of the fundamental right to carry on business. The petitioner, an Aratia engaged in wholesale business in vegetables and fruits, faced a complete halt in his business by the Municipal Board of Kairana due to the implementation of new bye-laws regulating the sale of vegetables and fruits within the municipality. The respondent Board had auctioned the contract for wholesale of vegetables, leading to a monopoly situation where only the contractor could conduct wholesale business at the designated market. The rejection of the petitioner's license application was based on the absence of a specific bye-law authorizing such licenses, rendering the prohibition absolute under the existing bye-laws.The Court analyzed the constitutional validity of the bye-laws under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to carry on trade or business subject to reasonable restrictions. It was observed that the grant of a monopoly to a contractor and the lack of provisions for issuing licenses imposed more than reasonable restrictions on the petitioner's business, rendering the bye-laws void under Article 13(1) of the Constitution. The Court also dismissed the argument that the petitioner's rights were not protected under Article 19(1)(g) as the bye-laws came into force before the Constitution, emphasizing that the protection extends to all citizens.Regarding the availability of legal remedies, the Court considered Section 318 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, which provided for appeals. However, it was concluded that the appeal process was not an adequate legal remedy in this case, given the circumstances and the absence of a specific bye-law authorizing the issuance of licenses. As a result, the Court held that the petitioner's fundamental rights had been infringed, directing the respondent Board to allow the petitioner to conduct his wholesale business in accordance with future bye-laws and to withdraw the pending prosecution against him, with costs to be borne by the respondents.In summary, the judgment highlighted the importance of upholding fundamental rights to carry on business, scrutinized the constitutional validity of the bye-laws, and emphasized the need for appropriate legal remedies in cases of rights infringement, ultimately ruling in favor of the petitioner's right to continue his business.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
