B.P.BERI, J. - (1.)BY his judgment dated April 22, 1074, Tyagi J dismissed three petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which had challenged the provisions of Section 297 -A of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter called 'the Act') and the Regulations made by the State Government thereunder (hereinafter called 'the Regulations') on the ground of their being violative of Articles 19(1)(f)(g) and 14 and 31 of the Constitution of India. Before the teemed single Judge it was conceded by the leraned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, who are the appellants before us, that by virtue of Article 358 of the Constitution of Indra the provisions of Article 19 were put in abeyance and, therefore, the attack was confined before him that some of the regulations were in excess of the powers under Section 297 A of the Act and they were also discriminatory under Article 14 of the Constitution Aggrieved by the dismissal of their petitions the appellants have come up in appeal before us Since common questions are involved in both these appeals, they are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.)LERANED Counsel for the appellants submitted that the objects which Section 297 -A of the Act was intended to attain, was the preservation of human health or the safety or convenience of the public in public places and streets and the amelioration of rickshaw pullers That Clause (c) of Sub -section (2) of Section 287 A of he Act was merely illustrative in view of the authorities of Emperor v. Sibnath Banerji and Ors. AIR (32) 1945 PC 156 and Santost Kumar Jain v. The State AIR (38) 1951 SC 201. His contention was that Section 297A(2)(c) of he Act which provides for the grant of licences to rickshaw pullers only (sic) as inconsistent with the objectives indicated in Section 297A(1) of the Act Regulations 5(6)(J), (8)(e) and (n) of the Regulations were bad because they exceeded the powers conferred by Section 297 -A(1). The leraned Counsel also submits that the classification between an owner rickshaw puller and mere rickshaw ruler had no reasonable nexus with the objective of Section 297 -A of the Act He invited our attention to the statement of objects of the Act by which Section 297 -A was inserted to indicate the conditions prevailing on 1 -1 -1973 and he submitted that these was permissible, according to the authority of Kovallappara Kottarathil Kochuni v. State of Madras and Kerala : [1960]3SCR887 .
Dr. Tiwari learned Additional Government Advocate supported the order of the learned Single Judge.

(3.)TWO questions emerge for our consideration namely.
(a) Whether Section 297 -A (2)(c) of the Act and regulations 5(6),(7), 8 (e) and (ii) are inconsistent with Section 297 -A (1) of the Act? and (b) whether the classification between an owner rickshaw puller and a ritkshaw puller simpliciter was unreasonable and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution? Let us read Section 297 -A(1) and Section 297 (2)(c): 297 A (1). Not withstanding anything contained in Section 297 or any other provision of this Act or any other law for the time being in force, the State Government may, for the purpose of preservation of human health or the salety or convenience of the public in public places and (sic) of the amelioration of rickshaw pullers, by regulations provide for regulating (with a. view to gradually abolishing) or prohibition, the plying, use, or drawing of rickshaw in streets and public places and to regulate the hours of work of (sic) pullers. (2) IN particular and without prejudice to generality of the foregoing power, such regulation may: .... .... ....(c) provide for the grant and renewal of licences of Rickshaws and Rickshaw pullers subject to the condition that a licence of a Rickshaw shall be granted or renewed only in the name of the puller. .... .... ....