Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) RESPONDENT No. 1 instituted a writ petition against the Municipal Board, Farrukhabad. His grievance was that though he had obtained a licence from the Ramlila Committee for holding a market for the sale of potatoes on a piece of land owned by it yet the municipal authorities have instituted prose cution against the shop keepers who have opened stalls under a permission grant ed by the petitioner. At the hear ing of the writ petition no one ap peared on behalf of the Municipal Board nor was any counter affidavit filed. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner respondent that the bye-laws under which the persons selling potatoes could be re quired to obtain a licence from the Muni cipal Board were ultra vires their powers and hence their action in prosecuting the stall holders was illegal. A learned Single Judge accepted this submission and allow ing the writ petition, he quashed the pro viso added to the bye-laws under notifica tion dated July 8, 1954. The Municipal Board was restrained from interfering with the respondent's holding the market. Ag grieved, the Municipal Board has come up in appeal.
(2.) THE appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. By a sepa rate order we have condoned the delay. It appears that the Municipal Board had under Section 299 of the U. P. Municipalities Act framed and published certain bye-laws for regulating the markets within the municipal limits and also within an area of one mile around the municipal limits of Farrukhabad-cum-Fatehgarh Muni cipality. The bye-laws were amended by a notification dated July 8, 1954 by adding the phrase "but excluding tobacco and potato" at the relevant place in bye-law No. 1. On January 12, 1961, the Municipal Board amended the bye-laws again. On this occasion the phrase "but excluding tobacco and potato" which had been added on July 8, 1954, was deleted with the result that tobacco and potato sellers came within the purview of the bye- laws. Bye-law No. 1 required the traders in the mentioned com modities to obtain a licence before they are entitled to continue the trade.
(3.) THE land where the respondent was holding the market was situate outside the municipal limits of Farrukhabad though it was within the one mile area around it. The question, therefore, is whether the Municipal Board has power to frame bye-lavvs in relation to this subject for an area falling outside the limits of the Municipal;