Limits on market bye-laws: a regulatory power cannot be used to impose an absolute ban on lawful business activity.

A bye-law made under a statutory power to promote health, safety and convenience and to regulate markets cannot impose an absolute prohibition on establishing, maintaining or running a cattle market. The Court held that such a prohibitory measure exceeded the enabling power under the United Provinces District Board Act, 1922 and directly interfered with the freedom to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g). A bye-law framed for regulation may not be used to bar a lawful business altogether where the statute does not authorise that level of restriction.

---

---

Issues: Whether bye-law No. 2 made by the District Board was within the Board's statutory power and whether it infringed the petitioner's right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

Analysis: The statutory power under Section 174 of the United Provinces District Board Act, 1922 authorised bye-laws to be made for promoting or maintaining the health, safety and convenience of the inhabitants and included power to regulate markets. The impugned bye-law did not regulate the market but prohibited any person from establishing, maintaining or running a cattle market within the district. A prohibitory bye-law of that kind went beyond the power conferred by the Act. It also directly interfered with the petitioner's freedom to carry on his business, and the restriction was not supported by the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The bye-law was void as ultra vires the Act and as offending Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi: A bye-law framed under a power to regulate markets cannot be used to impose an absolute prohibition on carrying on a lawful business, and any such prohibition is invalid if it exceeds the enabling statute and abridges the constitutional freedom to trade or carry on business.

---