Municipal bye-law powers and reasonable trade restrictions upheld for a locality-specific ban on egg sales.
The Municipal Board's general rule-making power under Sections 241 and 298 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 was held broad enough to support a bye-law prohibiting egg sales within municipal limits, because the specific matters listed in Section 298(2) were treated as illustrative and not exhaustive. The omission of eggs from the express list did not defeat competence, provided the bye-law was not inconsistent with the Act or rules. The restriction was also upheld under Article 19(1)(g) as reasonable in light of local conditions, public welfare, and the religious and cultural character of the area. The amended bye-law was therefore valid.
Issues: (i) Whether the Municipal Board had competence under Sections 241 and 298 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 to amend the bye-law so as to prohibit the sale of eggs within the municipal limits; (ii) Whether the prohibition on the sale of eggs amounted to an unreasonable restriction on the right to trade under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
Issue (i): Whether the Municipal Board had competence under Sections 241 and 298 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 to amend the bye-law so as to prohibit the sale of eggs within the municipal limits.
Analysis: Section 298(1) confers a general power on the municipality to make bye-laws for promoting or maintaining the health, safety and convenience of the inhabitants and for municipal administration. The specific matters in Section 298(2) are illustrative and do not exhaust that general power. Even if eggs are not expressly mentioned in Section 298(2) List I, the municipality could validly frame a bye-law under Section 298(1) unless it was inconsistent with the Act or the rules. The omission of eggs from Section 241 or Section 298(2) does not, by itself, invalidate the amendment.
Conclusion: The bye-law was within the competence of the Municipal Board and was validly framed.
Issue (ii): Whether the prohibition on the sale of eggs amounted to an unreasonable restriction on the right to trade under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
Analysis: A restriction on trade is tested by its reasonableness in the light of the nature of the trade, the local conditions, and the public interest sought to be served. In a pilgrim and religious town, preservation of a vegetarian atmosphere and maintenance of the religious and cultural character of the area were treated as relevant considerations. The restriction applied only within the municipal limits, while trade outside those limits remained unrestricted. The measure was held to be in furtherance of public welfare and not manifestly arbitrary or unjustified.
Conclusion: The prohibition was a reasonable restriction and did not violate Article 19(1)(g).
Final Conclusion: The amended bye-law prohibiting the sale of eggs within the municipal limits was upheld as a valid exercise of municipal power and as a constitutionally reasonable restriction; the appeal failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Specific illustrative powers in a municipal bye-law provision do not restrict the municipality's general rule-making power, and a locality-specific prohibition on a trade may be sustained as a reasonable restriction when justified by public welfare, health, safety, and the cultural character of the area.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
