Municipal trade restrictions must rest on law: weekly-market meat sales ban by resolution was invalid, but fixed-place byelaws stood.

A municipal authority cannot bar meat sales in weekly markets by mere resolution where existing byelaws already govern the field; such a prohibition is without authority of law and invalid. By contrast, byelaws confining meat sales to fixed places and allowing licence refusal where no space is available, or on ordinary grounds such as bad character or contagious disease, are valid public-health regulations because they support inspection, supervision, and orderly control in the general public interest. The challenge to those restrictions therefore fails, while the resolution-based ban is struck down.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Corporation could, by resolution and intimation alone, prohibit the sale of meat in weekly markets. (ii) Whether the restrictions in the byelaws confining meat sale to fixed places and empowering refusal of licences for want of space or on specified grounds were unreasonable or unconstitutional.

Issue (i): Whether the Corporation could, by resolution and intimation alone, prohibit the sale of meat in weekly markets.

Analysis: The right to carry on trade includes the right to sell in a public market, and any restriction on that right must be authorised by law and must satisfy the test of reasonableness in the interest of the general public. The Corporation's attempt to stop meat sales in weekly markets was not supported by a valid exercise of power under the Corporation Act, because the regulation of meat markets was already covered by existing byelaws deemed to continue in force, and the Corporation had not altered, modified, cancelled, or suspended those byelaws. A mere resolution could not override the byelaw scheme. The Court also rejected the argument that the action was a temporary suspension, since no definite factual basis for such a limited measure was established. The sanction-based argument under the General Clauses Act also did not assist the Corporation on the footing adopted by it.

Conclusion: The prohibition of meat sales in weekly markets by resolution and intimation was without authority of law and was invalid.

Issue (ii): Whether the restrictions in the byelaws confining meat sale to fixed places and empowering refusal of licences for want of space or on specified grounds were unreasonable or unconstitutional.

Analysis: Regulation of meat sales in fixed places was held to be a valid public-health measure because meat is a commodity that deteriorates easily and requires supervision to prevent the sale of stale or unwholesome meat. Confined sale in designated markets enabled inspection, stamping, and continuing control during the day, and the restriction was therefore in the interest of the general public. The clause permitting refusal of a licence when no stall or place was available was not unreasonable merely because accommodation was limited. Nor was the objection to the grounds of refusal in respect of bad character or contagious disease accepted, since the expressions were to be understood in their ordinary sense and the Act provided an appellate safeguard against abuse. The challenge based on the alleged unreasonableness of these restrictions therefore failed.

Conclusion: The byelaw restrictions were valid and not shown to be unreasonable or ultra vires.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded only to the extent that the Corporation's prohibition of weekly-market meat sales was struck down, while the regulatory byelaw scheme confining meat sales to fixed places was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A municipal authority cannot curtail a fundamental right to trade by mere resolution where the field is already occupied by continuing byelaws, but restrictions imposed by law to secure public health and orderly market supervision are valid if they are reasonable and in the interest of the general public.

---