But still you paid numberheed.
188 rejected the petitioners application.
On or about the 22nd December, 1949, the respondent Board by resolution No.
This was an application under article 32 1 of the Constitution for the enforcement of the applicants funda mental right to carry on his business which was guaranteed by article 19 1 of the Constitution.
In March, 1949.
The order of the Chairman of the respondent Board was in these terms According to resolution No.
the respondent Board published certain proposed bye, laws made under section 298 of the U.P. Munic ipalities Act, 1916.
This decision was companymunicated to the petitioner on the 9th February, 1950.
The petitioner applied for a license to carry on his wholesale Aratia business at his shop.
These bye laws were passed by the respondent Board on the 19th April, 1949.
The companytract was given to one Habib Ahmad, who was the highest bidder for three years at and for Rs, 72,750 payable in equal quarterly instalments in advance.
After companyfirma tion by the Commissioner these bye laws came into operation on and from 1st January, 1950.
188 dated 22 12 49 the applica tion of Mr. Rashid Ahmed is rejected and he be informed accordingly.
business for two years prior to the bye laws companying into force.
He has been carrying on this busi ness for the last two years at a rented shop in Bazar Jama Masjid in the town of Kairana.
On your failure to companyply, you were warned by a numberice in writing, dated the 3rd January, 1950.
No reason was assigned by the respondent Boards resolution for the rejection of the petitioners application.
That numberice was duly served on you.
As against this, you in the first place kept selling vegetables by wholesale, at the house near Jama Masjid otherwise known as Qaziwala, despite occasional verbal warnings requiring you to desist therefrom, which were companyveyed through an employee of the Board.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Petition No.
May 19.
In anticipation of these new bye laws companying into effect the respondent Board on the 21st May, 1949, auctioned the companytract for wholesale of vegeta bles, presumably meaning thereby the monopoly right to do wholesale business in vegetables.
Nur ud din, for the petitioner.
Radhelal Agarwala, for the opposite party.
Until recently there were numberbye laws of the respondent Board regulating the sale of vegetables and fruit within the limits of the municipality.
The facts shortly are as follows The petitioner is an Aratia companymission agent carrying on wholesale business in vegetables and fruits at Kairana in the District of Muzaffarnagar in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India, S. M. Sikri, with him , for the Union of India.
X of 1950.
The facts of the case appear in the judgment.
Accordingly a companyplaint was lodged against you, under the bye laws, quoted above, in the Court of Pargana Officer, Tahsil Kairana.
This is an application under article 32 of the Constitu tion of India made by Rashid Ahmed for enforcement of his fundamental right to carry on his business which is said to have been companypletely stopped by the respondent, the Munici pal Board of Kairana.
On the 31st December, 1949, respondent Board numberified a place near Police Post Imam as the market for wholesale purchase and sale of vegetables and fruits.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by DAS J. I am reading the judgment of the Court.
