TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Court rules against Corporation's meat selling ban in weekly markets, upholds licensing for hygienic reasons.</h1> The Court held that the Corporation's prohibition on selling meat in weekly markets without proper authorization was illegal and struck down the action. ... - Issues Involved:1. Legality of the Corporation's prohibition on the sale of meat in weekly markets.2. Legality of increased fees for stalls in municipal meat markets.3. Legality of the Corporation's refusal to grant licenses for selling meat outside designated areas.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Corporation's Prohibition on the Sale of Meat in Weekly Markets:The petitioners argued that the Corporation's prohibition on selling meat in weekly markets was not authorized by any legal provision. They contended that the Corporation needed a byelaw to effect such prohibition and should have obtained the Deputy Commissioner's sanction as per Byelaw No. 1. The Corporation, however, claimed the authority under Section 57(1)(m) of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act and byelaw No. 1 at page 64 of the Book.The Court held that Section 57(1)(m) did not confer power to regulate markets merely by passing resolutions; it required byelaws under Section 415(35)(b) of the Corporation Act. The byelaws at page 91, made under Section 179(1)(b-1) of the Municipalities Act, governed the regulation of meat markets. The Court found that the Corporation's action of prohibiting meat sales in weekly markets without the Deputy Commissioner's sanction was illegal. The Court also rejected the Corporation's argument that the prohibition was temporary, noting the lack of definite plans for adequate arrangements.The Court concluded that the Corporation's action was not authorized by law and thus had to be struck down. The Court also addressed the mala fide allegation, stating that while the Corporation's action was not legally authorized, it was motivated by concerns for public health rather than financial gain.2. Legality of Increased Fees for Stalls in Municipal Meat Markets:Petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 222 of 1958 challenged the increased fees for stalls, arguing that the fees must be commensurate with the services rendered by the Corporation. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in the Commr. Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar, which held that fees must be reasonable and not for revenue generation.The Corporation contended that the charges were justified to cover the costs of various services and to bring fees on par with other markets. The Court found that the term 'fees' in byelaw No. 3 at page 64 referred to charges for the use and occupation of stalls, not fees in the legal sense. The Court noted that while the Corporation could charge for the use of its property, the charges must be reasonable, especially when the Corporation had a monopoly on meat markets.The Court concluded that the reasonableness of the fees could only be determined through elaborate evidence, which was not possible in these proceedings. The petitioners were advised to seek redress through a suit. Consequently, Special Civil Application No. 222 of 1958 was dismissed.3. Legality of the Corporation's Refusal to Grant Licenses for Selling Meat Outside Designated Areas:Petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 243 of 1958 argued that the Corporation's refusal to grant licenses for selling meat outside designated areas was unreasonable and violated their right to do business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. They also challenged byelaw No. 1 and Clauses (i) and (ii) of byelaw 14 as unconstitutional.The Court held that the regulation of meat sales was in the public interest to ensure hygienic conditions and prevent the sale of unwholesome meat. Byelaw No. 1 and Clause (ii) of byelaw 14, which restricted meat sales to designated areas, were reasonable restrictions. The Court also found that the terms 'bad character' and 'contagious or infectious disease' in Clause (i) of byelaw 14 would be reasonably interpreted by the officers, with provisions for appeal against arbitrary decisions.The Court concluded that the restrictions imposed by the byelaws were not unreasonable. The petitioners' demand to sell meat outside designated areas was not conceded, and Special Civil Application No. 243 of 1958 was dismissed.Final Orders:- Special Civil Application Nos. 198/58 and 286/58 succeeded. The Corporation's prohibition on selling meat in weekly markets was quashed, and the Corporation was directed to consider applications for licenses in accordance with the law.- Special Civil Application No. 222 of 1958 was dismissed, with no order as to costs.- Special Civil Application No. 243 of 1958 was dismissed, with no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
