Letters Patent appeal from an Article 226 order remained maintainable, while the municipal resolution was struck down only in part.

Appellate jurisdiction under the Letters Patent was held to remain available against a single Judge's Article 226 order where the Judge acted within the High Court's rule-making and business-allocation framework, and the appeal was treated as within the relevant limitation period, with delay condoned. On the municipal law issue, a resolution and notice cancelling or refusing licences for slaughter and beef sale were invalid only to the extent they exceeded the applicable statutory scheme or obstructed consideration of renewal applications. The municipality retained power to close the slaughter-house, so the resolution was not wholly void. Relief was therefore granted only in part, with the directions concerning the notice and renewal applications maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an appeal lay to the High Court from a single Judge's order under Article 226 of the Constitution and whether the appeal was barred by limitation; (ii) whether the municipal resolution and notice cancelling or refusing licences for slaughter and sale of beef were ultra vires in whole or in part.

Issue (i): Whether an appeal lay to the High Court from a single Judge's order under Article 226 of the Constitution and whether the appeal was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The appellate jurisdiction under the Letters Patent was held to survive for orders made under Article 226 where the single Judge acted pursuant to the Court's rule-making and allocation of business. The jurisdiction under Article 226 was treated as falling within the constitutional scheme preserving the High Court's jurisdiction and the power to regulate sittings. The Court further held that the applicable limitation for such an appeal was the period governing appeals from single-Judge orders on the original side, and in the circumstances the delay was liable to be condoned.

Conclusion: The appeal was maintainable and the delay was condoned.

Issue (ii): Whether the municipal resolution and notice cancelling or refusing licences for slaughter and sale of beef were ultra vires in whole or in part.

Analysis: The resolution went beyond the statutory scheme in so far as it purported to deal with licences under provisions not applicable to the respondents' existing licences, and the order could not be sustained against a blanket refusal to consider future applications under the relevant licensing provisions. At the same time, the Commissioners had discretion to close the municipal slaughter-house, and the resolution was not wholly invalid. The notice, read in context, could impede consideration of renewal applications and was therefore liable to be interfered with to that extent.

Conclusion: The resolution was set aside in part, the notice and direction to consider renewal applications were maintained, and the appeal succeeded only partly.

Final Conclusion: The judgment upheld appellate scrutiny of the Article 226 order, but granted relief only to the extent that the municipal resolution exceeded statutory authority while leaving intact the directions concerning the notice and reconsideration of the renewal applications.

Ratio Decidendi: A judgment of a single Judge under Article 226 is appealable under the Letters Patent where it is delivered pursuant to the High Court's preserved rule-making and allocation powers, and a municipal resolution is invalid only to the extent it departs from the statutory source of power or applies irrelevant considerations.

---