RASHID AHMED versus THE MUNICIPAL BOARD, KAIRANA, THE UNION OF INDIA AND THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

RASHID AHMED versus THE MUNICIPAL BOARD, KAIRANA, THE UNION OF INDIA AND THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

The prohibition in bye-law became absolute due to absence of license provision; grant of monopoly put it out of the Board's power to grant license to petitioner, making restrictions unreasonable under Article 19(6); bye-laws thus void and illegal under Article 13(1); prior existence of bye-laws does not affect fundamental rights after Constitution's commencement; appeal under section 318 is not an adequate remedy in the circumstances.

Parties
Petitioner: Rashid Ahmed; Respondent: Municipal Board, Kairana; Intervener: Union of India; Intervener: State of Uttar Pradesh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
19 May 1950
Procedural Posture
Article 32 Petition / Original Jurisdiction, Final Judgment
Outcome
Petition allowed
Legal Topics
Fundamental Rights, Reasonableness of Restrictions, Right to Trade, Municipal Bylaws, Monopoly, Legal Remedies
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Fundamental Rights Reasonableness of Restrictions Right to Trade Municipal Bylaws Monopoly Legal Remedies

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rashid Ahmed

Petitioner

Municipal Board, Kairana

Respondent

Union of India

Intervener

State of Uttar Pradesh

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Article 32 Petition / Original Jurisdiction, Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the municipal bye-laws prohibiting wholesale trade without license and granting monopoly are reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6) of Constitution
  2. 2 Whether absence of license provision and monopoly grant renders the bye-laws void
  3. 3 Whether a prior remedy under section 318 of U.P. Municipalities Act bars Article 32 petition

Ratio Decidendi

The prohibition in bye-law became absolute due to absence of license provision; grant of monopoly put it out of the Board's power to grant license to petitioner, making restrictions unreasonable under Article 19(6); bye-laws thus void and illegal under Article 13(1); prior existence of bye-laws does not affect fundamental rights after Constitution's commencement; appeal under section 318 is not an adequate remedy in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Petition allowed

Orders

  • Respondent Municipal Board directed not to prohibit petitioner from carrying on wholesale trade as commission agent of vegetables and fruits within municipal limits, except per valid future bye-laws framed according to law.
  • Board directed to withdraw pending prosecution of petitioner.