LexLords NRI Legal Services In India By NRI Legal Services LexLords

NRI legal services https://lexlords.com/regular-bail/. nThere were, at the time when the bye-laws of the respond- ent Committee were framed, five provisos to this section none of which authorised the imposition of any tax on any business and, therefore, they have no bearing on the ques- tion now under consideration. 397/XI-871-E, dated the 6th February, 1929, whereby, in supersession of all previous notifications, the Provincial Government, in exer- cise of the powers conferred by section 38(1) of the United Provinces Town Areas Act, 1914, extended the provisions of sections 293(1) and 298(2) (J) (d) of the United Provinces Municipalities Act (11 of 1916) to all the town area in the United Provinces in the modified form set forth therein.

It will have, therefore, to be seen wheth- er these bye-laws come within The purview of section 298 (2) (J) (d) as modified in their application to the respondent Committee. These bye-laws do not purport to fix a fee for the use or occupation of any immovable property vested in or entrusted to the management of the Town Area Committee including any public street or place of which it allows the use or occupation whether by allowing a projection thereon or otherwise.

Then he proceeds to draw our attention to Notification No. From the way the case was formulated by the learned counsel, it is quite clear that if anybody uses the public street it is the growers of vegetables and fruits who come to the petition- er's shop to get their produce auctioned by the petitioner and the petitioner cannot be charged with fees for use of the public street by those persons. It appears, however, that the bye-laws of the respondent Committee were revised in Septem- ber 1942 and were then said to have been made under section 298 (2) (J) (d).

93(1) and prescribing the times at which such charges or fees shall be payable and designating the persons authorised to receive payment thereof. Sections 293(1) and NRI legal services, learn more here, 298(2) (J) (d) of the United Province Municipalities Act, 1916, as amended at the time they were extended to the town areas in the United Provinces do not empower the Town Area Committee to make any bye-law authorising it to 581 charge any fees otherwise than for the use or occupation of any property vested in or entrusted to the management of the Town Area Committee including any public street.

Learned counsel for the respondents, however, draws our attention to section 38 of the Act which authorises the Provincial Government by noti- fication in the Official Gazette to extend to all or any or any part of any town area any enactment for the time being in force in any municipality in the United Provinces and to declare its extension to be subject to such restrictions and modifications, if any, as it thinks fit. Bye-law 4 (b), however, allows any person to sell in wholesale at any place in the town area, provided he pays the prescribed fees to the licensee.

We have not been referred to any notification whereby section '294 580 of the United Provinces Municipalities Act was extended to the respondent Committee. Learned counsel for the respondent Commit- tee, however, urges that the growers of vegetables and fruits come on foot or in carts or on horses along the public street and stand outside the petitioner's shop and for such use of the public street the respondent Committee is well within its powers to charge the fees. The original bye-laws produced by learned counsel purport, however, to have been framed by the respondent Committee under sections 298 (2)(F)(a)and 294 of the United Provinces Municipalities Act (11 of 1916).

Section 293(1), as modified, authorises the respondent Committee to charge fees to be fixed by bye-laws or by public auction or by agreement for the use or occupation (otherwise than under a lease) of any immovable property vested in, or entrusted to the management of the Town Area Committee, including any public street or place of NRI legal services (learn more here) which it allows the use or occupation whether by allowing a projection thereon or otherwise. In the absence of any valid law authorising it, such illegal impo- sition must undoubtedly operate as an illegal restraint and must infringe the unfettered right of the wholesale dealer to carry on his occupation, trade or business which is guaranteed to him by article 19(1) (g) of our Constitution 75 582 In this view of the matter the petitioner is entitled to a suitable order for protection of his fundamental right Therefore, the bye-laws prima facie go much beyond the powers con- ferred on the respondent Committee by the sections men- tioned above and the petitioner complains against the en- forcement of these bye laws against him as he carries on business in his own shop and not in or on any immoveable property vested in the Town Area Committee or entrusted to their management.

It will be noticed that under section 298 (2) (J) (d) as modified as aforesaid the respondent Committee is authorised only to make bye-laws fixing any charges or fees or any scale of charges or fees to be paid under section 9. In our opinion, the bye-laws which impose a charge on the wholesale dealer in the shape of the prescribed fee, irrespective of any use or occupation by him of immoveable property vested in or en- trusted to the management of the Town Area Committee includ- ing any public street, are obviously ultra vires the powers of the respondent Committee and, therefore, the bye laws cannot be said to constitute a valid law which alone may, under article 19(16) of the Constitution,ofimpose a restric- tion on the right conferred by article 19(1) (g).

Bye-law 1 of the respondent Committee to which a reference has already been made forbids a person from using any land within the limits of the town area for the sale or purchase of fruits and vegetables without paying the prescribed fee.