{"id":119690,"date":"1952-02-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1952-02-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-yasin-vs-the-town-area-on-27-february-1952"},"modified":"2017-11-23T11:46:27","modified_gmt":"2017-11-23T06:16:27","slug":"mohammad-yasin-vs-the-town-area-on-27-february-1952","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-yasin-vs-the-town-area-on-27-february-1952","title":{"rendered":"Mohammad Yasin vs The Town Area … on 27 February, 1952"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Mohammad Yasin vs The Town Area … on 27 February, 1952<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1952 AIR 115, \t\t 1952 SCR 572<\/div>\n
Author: S R Das<\/div>\n
Bench: Sastri, M. Patanjali (Cj), Mahajan, Mehr Chand, Mukherjea, B.K., Das, Sudhi Ranjan, Aiyar, N. Chandrasekhara<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMOHAMMAD YASIN\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE TOWN AREA COMMITTEE,JALALABAD AND ANOTHER.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n27\/02\/1952\n\nBENCH:\nDAS, SUDHI RANJAN\nBENCH:\nDAS, SUDHI RANJAN\nSASTRI, M. PATANJALI (CJ)\nMAHAJAN, MEHR CHAND\nMUKHERJEA, B.K.\nAIYAR, N. CHANDRASEKHARA\n\nCITATION:\n 1952 AIR  115\t\t  1952 SCR  572\n CITATOR INFO :\n F\t    1952 SC 118\t (1,3)\n R\t    1953 SC 252\t (8)\n R\t    1954 SC 403\t (9)\n R\t    1955 SC 661\t (5,60,145)\n RF\t    1957 SC 790\t (10)\n R\t    1958 SC 296\t (7)\n RF\t    1958 SC 578\t (228)\n R\t    1958 SC 956\t (26)\n R\t    1959 SC 480\t (2,4)\n R\t    1962 SC 123\t (12)\n R\t    1962 SC1006\t (34,81)\n F\t    1962 SC1563\t (115)\n R\t    1962 SC1621\t (39,45,165)\n R\t    1970 SC 564\t (74)\n D\t    1971 SC1737\t (45)\n RF\t    1975 SC1443\t (6)\n RF\t    1992 SC1033\t (33)\n\n\nACT:\n    Constitution  of India, 1950, Arts. 19(1)(g), 32--U.  P.\nMunicipalities Act, 1916, ss. 293 ( 1), 298(2)(g)(d)--Munic-\nipal bye-laws-Bye-law imposing fee for carrying on wholesale\ntrade in vegetables and fruits within municipal area--Valid-\nity--Restraint\t on   fundamental   right   to\t carry\t  on\ntrade--Licence and tax, difference.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    There is a difference between a tax like the  income-tax\nand  a licence fee for carrying on an occupation,  trade  or\nbusiness.  A licence lee on a business not only\t takes\taway\nthe property of the licensee but also operates as a restric-\ntion on his fundamental\n573\nright to carry on his business.\t Therefore if the imposition\nof  a  licence\tfee is without authority of law\t it  can  be\nchallenged by way of an application under Art. 32.\n    Under  Art. 19(1) (g) of the Constitution a citizen\t has\nthe right to carry on any occupation, trade or business\t and\nthe only restriction on this unfettered right is the author-\nity  of the State to make a law relating to the carrying  on\nof  such occupation, trade or business as mentioned  in\t cl.\n(6)  of that article as amended by the\tConstitution  (First\nAmendment)  Act, 1951.\tIf therefore a licence\tfee  imposed\nfor  carrying on an occupation, trade or business cannot  be\njustified on the basis of any valid law, no question of\t its\nreasonableness can arise, for an illegal impost must at\t all\ntimes  be an unreasonable restriction and  will\t necessarily\ninfringe  the right of the citizen to carry on\this  occupa-\ntion,  trade  or  business under Art. 19(1)  (g),  and\tsuch\ninfringement  can properly be made the subject matter  of  a\nchallenge under Art. 32 of the Constitution.\n    Bye-law No. 1 of the Bye-laws of the Town Area Committee\nof  Jalalabad  (in the United Provinces)  provided  that  no\nperson shall sell or purchase any vegetables or fruit within\nthe  prescribed limits of the Town Area Committee by  whole-\nsale  or  auction, without paying the fees  fixed  by  these\nbye-laws  to the licensee appointed by the Town\t Magistrate.\nBye-law\t No.  4\t (b) provided that any person  can  sell  in\nwholesale at any place in the town area provided he pays the\nprescribed  fees  to the licensee.  A person  who  had\tbeen\ncarrying  on the business of wholesale dealer in  vegetables\nand  fruits  in his own shop at Jalalabad for  a  period  of\nseven years applied for protection under Art. 32  contending\nthat these bye-laws infringed his fundamental right to carry\non  his trade guaranteed by Art. 19 (1) (g) and were  there-\nfore void.\n    Held, that s. 293 (1) and s. 298 (2) (J) (d) of the U.P.\nMunicipalities\tAct, 1916, as amended at the time they\twere\nextended  to the town areas in the United Provinces did\t not\nempower\t the Town Area Committee to make any bye-law  autho-\nrising it to charge any fees otherwise than for the use\t and\noccupation  of\tany property vested in or entrusted  to\t the\nmanagement  of the Town Area Committee including any  public\nstreet.\t The bye-laws in question which imposed a charge  on\nthe  wholesale\tdealer in the shape of the  prescribed\tfee,\nirrespective  of any use or occupation by him  of  immovable\nproperty  vested  in or entrusted to the management  of\t the\nTown  Area Committee including any public street, are  obvi-\nously  ultra vires the powers of the Committee\tand,  there-\nfore, the bye-laws cannot be said to constitute a valid\t law\nwhich  alone  may, under Art. 19 (6)  of  the  Constitution,\nimpose\ta restriction on the right conferred by\t Art.  19(1)\n(g).   In the absence of any valid law authorising it,\tsuch\nillegal\t imposition must undoubtedly operate as\t an  illegal\nrestraint  and\tmust infringe the unfettered  right  of\t the\nwholesale dealer to carry on 74\n574\nhis occupation, trade or business which is guaranteed to him\nby Art. 19 (1) (g) of our Constitution.\n    Kairana case [1950] S.C.R. 566 and Ramji Lal v.  Income-\ntax Officer, Mohindargarh [1951] S.C. R. 127 distinguished.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    ORIGINAL  JURISDICTION: Petition No. 132 of 1951.  Peti-
\ntion  under  Art. 32 of the Constitution for a writ  in\t the
\nnature\tof mandamus.  The material facts are set out in\t the
\njudgment.\n<\/p>\n
Nuruddin  Abroad for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
K.N. Aggarwal for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
1952.  February 27.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered
\nby
\n    DAs\t J.–This is an application under article 32 of\t the
\nConstitution  made by Mohammad Yasin for the  protection  of
\nhis  fundamental  right of carrying on his  business  which,
\naccording to him, is being infringed by the respondent.
\n    The\t case sought to be made out in the petition  may  be
\nshortly stated as follows:–\n<\/p>\n
    The petitioner is a wholesale dealer in fresh vegetables
\nand fruits at Jalalabad in  the district of Muzaffarnagar in
\nthe State of Uttar  Pradesh and claims to have been carrying
\non  such  business for the last 7 years or so  at  his\tshop
\nsituated in the town of Jalalabad.  The vegetable and  fruit
\ngrowers\t used to bring their goods to the town and get\tthem
\nauctioned  through  any of the vegetable  dealers  of  their
\nchoice\twho used to charge one anna in the rupee as  and  by
\nway   of commission.   The respondent Committee which  is  a
\nTown Area Committee has framed certain bye-laws under  which
\nall right and power to levy or collect commission on sale or
\npurchase  of vegetables and fruits within the limits of\t the
\ntown  vest in the respondent Committee or any  other  agency
\nappointed by the Committee and no one except the  respondent
\nCommittee is authorised to deal in wholesale vegetables\t and
\nfruits\tand collect the commission thereof in any place\t and
\nin any event.  The respondent Committee has by auction given
\nthe contract for sale of
\n575<\/span>
\nvegetables and fruits and for collecting the commission\t for
\nthe  current  year to the respondent Bishamber\twho,  it  is
\nalleged,  has  never  dealt in vegetables  and\tfruits\t The
\nrespondent  Committee has not set up any market nor  has  it
\nframed\tany bye-laws for issue of licences to the  vegetable
\nand fruit merchants.  The bye-laws also provide for prosecu-
\ntion  for the breach of any of the provisions of these\tbye-
\nlaws.  Although, in terms, there is no absolute\t prohibition
\nagainst carrying on business as wholesale dealer in  vegeta-
\nbles  and fruits, the result of the bye-laws  requiring\t the
\nwholesale  dealers to pay the prescribed fee of one anna  in
\nthe  rupee to the contractor who holds the monopoly  is,  in
\neffect,\t to bring about a total prohibition of the  business
\nof  the\t wholesale dealers in vegetables  and  fruits.\t The
\npetitioner contends that by granting a monopoly of the right
\nto  do\twholesale business in vegetables and fruits  to\t the
\nrespondent Bishamber the respondent Committee has in  effect
\ntotally prevented the petitioner from carrying on his  busi-
\nness  and  has thereby\tinfringed   his\t  fundamental  right
\nunder article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.  In the alterna-
\ntive, the petitioner contends that the respondent  Committee
\nhas  no legal authority to impose a tax of the kind  it\t has
\nsought to do, that the imposition of a tax calculated at one
\nanna in the rupee is in the nature of a sale-tax and  cannot
\nbe  regarded as a licence fee and such\tunauthorised  impost
\nconstitutes  an illegal restraint on his  fundamental  right
\nunder article 19 (1) (g).\n<\/p>\n
    The\t notice of motion has been served on the  respondent
\nCommittee as well as on respondent Bishamber.  The  respond-
\nents  have  entered  appearance and filed  an  affidavit  in
\nopposition  to\tthe present application\t affirmed  by  their
\nagent on record\t Paragraph 4 of that affidavit is as follows
\n:–\n<\/p>\n
    “4.\t Paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the petition are  wrong
\nand  misleading and do not convey the correct idea.  If\t the
\nbye-laws  are read from beginning to end, the correct  posi-
\ntion  is that the Town Area Committee has  lawfully  imposed
\ncertain taxes on the purchase
\n576<\/span>
\nand  sale of fruits and vegetables within the ambit  of\t the
\nTown  Area;  and instead of collecting the  aforesaid  taxes
\ndepartmentally\tthe Committee finds it more  convenient\t and
\nless  expensive to auction the ‘right to collect the  taxes’
\nand give the contract to the highest bidder or whomsoever it
\nthinks fit and proper. There is absolutely no restriction on
\nanybody who wants to purchase or anybody who wants to  sell;
\nonly he must pay the prescribed tax to the Town Area Commit-
\ntee  through the Contractor.  The market is open,  and\twrit
\nlarge  throughout the territory of the Town  Area  Committee
\nand  anybody can purchase from anybody and anybody can\tsell
\nto  anybody,  without  any control or  intervention  by\t the
\nContractor, whose position is simply that of a\ttaxcollector
\non behalf of the Town Area Committee. Instead of getting the
\npay,  he  gets\tthe profits, if any, and runs  the  risk  of
\nincurring  losses  if his gross realisations are  less\tthan
\nwhat  he  paid.\t  This is clearly the position,\t and  it  is
\nsubmitted,  there  is nothing wrong with it legally  and  no
\ninterference of the petitioner’s rights.”\n<\/p>\n
    The\t petitioner has to his petition annexed copies of  a
\nset of bye-laws dated June 24, 1942, and a copy of a resolu-
\ntion  of  the  respondent Committee dated  March  16,  1950,
\nrecommending the addition of several bye-laws to the  previ-
\nous  bye-laws.\tAt the hearing of the petition before us  it
\nwas  agreed  by and between counsel on both sides  that\t the
\npetition has to be disposed of on the basis of the  bye-laws
\nof 1942 only and learned counsel for the respondent  Commit-
\ntee  has produced the original bye-laws of 1942\t before\t us.
\nBye-law\t 1 only provides that no person shall sell  or\tpur-
\nchase any vegetable or fruit within the prescribed limits of
\nthe   Town  Area  Committee,  Jalalabad\t by   wholesale\t  or
\nauction,without\t paying the  fee fixed under these  bye-laws
\nto the licensee appointed by the Town Magistrate.  Bye-law 4\n<\/p>\n
(b) expressly provides that any person can sell in wholesale
\nat  any\t place in the Town Area provided he  pays  the\tpre-
\nscribed fees to the licensee.  It is, therefore, clear\tthat
\nthese byelaws do not in terms, prohibit anybody from dealing
\nin vegetables and fruits as alleged by the petitioner
\n577<\/span>
\nand in this respect they materially differ from the bye-laws
\nwhich  this  Court had to consider in  the  Kairana  case(1)
\nwhich consequently does not govern this case.
\n Learned  counsel,  however,  contends–and  we\t think\twith
\nconsiderable  force  and cogency–that\talthough,  in  form,
\nthere  is no prohibition against carrying on  any  wholesale
\nbusiness by anybody, in effect and in substance the bye-laws
\nhave  brought about a total stoppage of the wholesale  deal-
\ners’ business in a commercial sense. The wholesale  dealers,
\nwho  will have to pay the prescribed fee to  the  contractor
\nappointed  by auction, will necessarily have to\t charge\t the
\ngrowers\t of vegetables and fruits something over  and  above
\nthe  prescribed\t lee so as to keep a margin  of\t profit\t for
\nthemselves but in such circumstances no grower of vegetables
\nand fruits will have his produce sold to or auctioned by the
\nwholesale  dealers  at a higher rate of commission  but\t all
\nof  them will flock to the contractor who will\tonly  charge
\nthem  the prescribed commission. On the other hand,  if\t the
\nwholesale  dealers  charge  the growers\t of  vegetables\t and
\nfruits\tonly the commission prescribed by the bye laws\tthey
\nwill  have  to make over the whole of it to  the  contractor
\nwithout keeping any profit themselves.\tIn other words,\t the
\nwholesale   dealers will  be  converted\t into mere tax\tcol-
\nlectors\t for  the  contractor or  the  respondent  Committee
\nwithout\t any  remuneration from either of them\t In  effect,
\ntherefore,  the bye-laws, it is said, have brought  about  a
\ntotal  prohibition of the business of the wholesale  dealers
\nin  a commercial sense and from a practical point  of  view.
\nWe  are\t not of opinion that this contention is\t unsound  or
\nuntenable.\n<\/p>\n
      Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, does\t not
\nleave  the matter there. He goes further and urges that\t the
\nrespondent  Committee has no legal authority to impose\tthis
\nfee  of one anna in the rupee on the value of goods sold  or
\nauctioned  and\tthat such imposition is in the nature  of  a
\nsale tax rather than a licence fee.\n<\/p>\n
(1) [1950] S.C.R. 566.\n<\/p>\n
578<\/span><\/p>\n
    Learned  counsel  for the respondent in  reply  takes  a
\npreliminary  objection to this line of argument.  He  points
\nout that as the levying of a tax without authority of law is
\nspecifically  prohibited under article 265 of the  Constitu-
\ntion, article 81(1) must be construed as referring to depri-
\nvation\tof property otherwise than by levying of a  tax\t and
\nthat  levying of a tax in contravention of article 265\tdoes
\nnot amount to a breach of a fundamental right. He  contends,
\non  the authority of the decision of this Court in  Ramjilal
\nv. Income-tax Officer, Mohindargarh<\/a>(1), that while an  ille-
\ngal  imposition of tax may be challenged in a properly\tcon-
\nstituted  suit,\t it cannot be questioned by  an\t application
\nunder  article 32.  This argument overlooks  the  difference
\nbetween\t a  tax like the income-tax and a  licence  fee\t for
\ncarrying on a business. A licence fee on a business not only
\ntakes away the property of the licensee but also operates as
\na  restriction on his  right to carry on his  business,\t for
\nwithout\t payment of such fee the business cannot be  carried
\non  at\tall.  This aspect of the matter was  not  raised  or
\nconsidered in the case relied on by the learned counsel, and
\nthat  case,  therefore, has no application to the  facts  of
\nthis case. Under article 19(1) (g) the citizen has the right
\nto  carry on any occupation, trade or business\twhich  right
\nunder  that clause is apparently to be unfettered. The\tonly
\nrestriction to this unfettered right is the authority of the
\nState  to  make a law relating to the carrying\ton  of\tsuch
\noccupation, trade or business as mentioned in clause (6)  of
\nthat  article as amended by the Constitution  (First  Amend-
\nment)  Act, 1951.  If therefore, the licence fee  cannot  be
\njustified  on the basis of any valid law no question of\t its
\nreasonableness can arise, for an illegal impost must at\t all
\ntimes  be an unreasonable restriction and  will\t necessarily
\ninfringe  the right of the citizen to carry on\this  occupa-
\ntion,  trade or business under article 19 (1) (g)  and\tsuch
\ninfringement  can properly be made the subject-matter  of  a
\nchallenge under article 32 of the Constitution.
\n(1) [1951] S.C.R.127.\n<\/p>\n
579<\/span><\/p>\n
    Learned  counsel for the respondents then refers  us  to
\nthe  U.P. Town Areas Act (No. 11 of 1914) which governs\t the
\nrespondent  Committee.\tSection 14 of this Act requires\t the
\nCommittee  to annually determine and report to the  District
\nMagistrate the amount required to be raised in any town area
\nfor the purposes of this Act and provides that the amount so
\ndetermined shall be raised by the imposition of a tax to  be
\nassessed  on  the occupiers of houses or  lands\t within\t the
\nlimits\tof the town area according either to  their  general
\ncircumstances or to the annual rental value of the houses or
\nlands  so occupied by them as the Committee  may  determine.
\nThere were, at the time when the  bye-laws  of the  respond-
\nent  Committee\twere framed, five provisos to  this  section
\nnone  of which authorised the imposition of any tax  on\t any
\nbusiness  and, therefore, they have no bearing on the  ques-
\ntion  now  under  consideration.  Learned  counsel  for\t the
\nrespondents,  however, draws our attention to section 38  of
\nthe Act which authorises the Provincial Government by  noti-
\nfication in the Official Gazette to extend to all or any  or
\nany  part of any town area any enactment for the time  being
\nin force in any municipality in the United Provinces and  to
\ndeclare its extension to be subject to such restrictions and
\nmodifications, if any, as it thinks fit. Then he proceeds to
\ndraw  our attention to Notification No. 397\/XI-871-E,  dated
\nthe  6th  February, 1929, whereby, in  supersession  of\t all
\nprevious notifications, the Provincial Government, in  exer-
\ncise of the powers conferred by section 38(1) of the  United
\nProvinces  Town Areas Act, 1914, extended the provisions  of
\nsections  293(1) and 298(2) (J) (d) of the United  Provinces
\nMunicipalities Act (11 of 1916) to all the town area in\t the
\nUnited Provinces in the modified form set forth therein. The
\noriginal  bye-laws  produced  by  learned  counsel  purport,
\nhowever,  to  have been framed by the  respondent  Committee
\nunder sections 298 (2)(F)(a)and 294 of the United  Provinces
\nMunicipalities\tAct (11 of 1916). We have not been  referred
\nto any notification whereby section ‘294
\n580<\/span>
\nof  the United Provinces Municipalities Act was extended  to
\nthe  respondent\t Committee. It appears,\t however,  that\t the
\nbye-laws of the respondent Committee were revised in Septem-
\nber 1942 and were then said to have been made under  section
\n298 (2) (J) (d).  It will have, therefore, to be seen wheth-
\ner these bye-laws come within The purview of section 298 (2)
\n(J)  (d) as modified in their application to the  respondent
\nCommittee. It will be noticed that under section 298 (2) (J)\n<\/p>\n
(d)  as\t modified as aforesaid the respondent  Committee  is
\nauthorised only to make bye-laws fixing any charges or\tfees
\nor  any\t scale of charges or fees to be paid  under  section
\n9.93(1)\t and prescribing the times at which such charges  or
\nfees shall be payable and designating the persons authorised
\nto  receive  payment thereof. Section 293(1),  as  modified,
\nauthorises  the\t respondent Committee to charge fees  to  be
\nfixed  by bye-laws or by public auction or by agreement\t for
\nthe use or occupation (otherwise than under a lease) of\t any
\nimmovable property vested in, or entrusted to the management
\nof  the Town Area Committee, including any public street  or
\nplace  of which it allows the use or occupation\t whether  by
\nallowing a projection thereon or otherwise. Bye-law 1 of the
\nrespondent  Committee to which a reference has already\tbeen
\nmade forbids a person from using any land within the  limits
\nof  the\t town area for the sale or purchase  of\t fruits\t and
\nvegetables  without  paying the prescribed fee.\t  Bye-law  4\n<\/p>\n
(b), however, allows any person to sell in wholesale at\t any
\nplace in the town area, provided he pays the prescribed fees
\nto the licensee.  These bye-laws do not purport to fix a fee
\nfor  the use or occupation of any immovable property  vested
\nin or entrusted to the management of the Town Area Committee
\nincluding any public street or place of which it allows\t the
\nuse  or occupation whether by allowing a projection  thereon
\nor  otherwise.\tSections 293(1) and 298(2) (J)\t(d)  of\t the
\nUnited Province Municipalities Act, 1916, as amended at\t the
\ntime  they  were extended to the town areas  in\t the  United
\nProvinces do not empower the Town Area Committee to make any
\nbye-law authorising it to
\n581<\/span>
\ncharge any fees otherwise than for the use or occupation  of
\nany property vested in or entrusted to the management of the
\nTown Area Committee including any public street.  Therefore,
\nthe  bye-laws prima   facie go much beyond the\tpowers\tcon-
\nferred\ton  the respondent Committee by the  sections\tmen-
\ntioned\tabove and the petitioner complains against  the\t en-
\nforcement  of  these bye laws against him as he\t carries  on
\nbusiness  in  his own shop and not in or on  any  immoveable
\nproperty  vested in the Town Area Committee or entrusted  to
\ntheir management. Learned counsel for the respondent Commit-
\ntee,  however,\turges  that the growers\t of  vegetables\t and
\nfruits\tcome  on  foot or in carts or on  horses  along\t the
\npublic\tstreet and stand outside the petitioner’s  shop\t and
\nfor  such use of the public street the respondent  Committee
\nis well within its powers to charge the fees.  From the\t way
\nthe case was formulated by the learned counsel, it is  quite
\nclear  that  if\t anybody uses the public street\t it  is\t the
\ngrowers\t of vegetables and fruits who come to the  petition-
\ner’s  shop to get their produce auctioned by the  petitioner
\nand  the petitioner cannot be charged with fees for  use  of
\nthe  public  street by those persons. In  our  opinion,\t the
\nbye-laws  which impose a charge on the wholesale  dealer  in
\nthe shape of the prescribed fee, irrespective of any use  or
\noccupation  by him of immoveable property vested in  or\t en-
\ntrusted to the management of the Town Area Committee includ-
\ning any public street, are obviously ultra vires the  powers
\nof  the\t respondent Committee and, therefore, the  bye\tlaws
\ncannot\tbe said to constitute a valid law which\t alone\tmay,
\nunder article 19(16) of the Constitution,ofimpose a restric-
\ntion  on the right conferred by article 19(1) (g).   In\t the
\nabsence of any valid law authorising it, such illegal  impo-
\nsition must undoubtedly operate as an illegal restraint\t and
\nmust  infringe the unfettered right of the wholesale  dealer
\nto  carry  on  his occupation, trade or\t business  which  is
\nguaranteed  to him by article 19(1) (g) of our\tConstitution
\n75<\/span>
\n582<\/span>
\n     In\t this view of the matter the petitioner is  entitled
\nto a suitable order for protection of his fundamental right.
\nThe  prayer in the petition, however, has been expressed  in
\nlanguage  much too wide and cannot be granted in that  form.
\nThe proper order would be to direct the respondent Committee
\nnot  to prohibit the  petitioner from carrying on the  busi-
\nness  of a wholesale dealer in vegetables and fruits  within
\nthe limits of the Jalalabad Town Area Committee until proper
\nand  valid  bye-laws  are framed and  thereafter  except  in
\naccordance  with a licence to be obtained by the  petitioner
\nunder the bye-laws to be so framed.  The respondent  Commit-
\ntee will pay the costs of this application to the  petition-
\ner.\n<\/p>\n
Agent for the petitioner: Naunit Lal.\n<\/p>\n
Agent for the respondent: P.C. Aggarwal.\n<\/p>\n
583<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Mohammad Yasin vs The Town Area … on 27 February, 1952 Equivalent citations: 1952 AIR 115, 1952 SCR 572 Author: S R Das Bench: Sastri, M. Patanjali (Cj), Mahajan, Mehr Chand, Mukherjea, B.K., Das, Sudhi Ranjan, Aiyar, N. Chandrasekhara PETITIONER: MOHAMMAD YASIN Vs. RESPONDENT: THE TOWN AREA COMMITTEE,JALALABAD AND ANOTHER. DATE […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-119690","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMohammad Yasin vs The Town Area ... on 27 February, 1952 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-yasin-vs-the-town-area-on-27-february-1952\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mohammad Yasin vs The Town Area ... on 27 February, 1952 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-yasin-vs-the-town-area-on-27-february-1952\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1952-02-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-23T06:16:27+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammad-yasin-vs-the-town-area-on-27-february-1952#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammad-yasin-vs-the-town-area-on-27-february-1952\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mohammad Yasin vs The Town Area … on 27 February, 1952\",\"datePublished\":\"1952-02-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-23T06:16:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammad-yasin-vs-the-town-area-on-27-february-1952\"},\"wordCount\":2941,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammad-yasin-vs-the-town-area-on-27-february-1952#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammad-yasin-vs-the-town-area-on-27-february-1952\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammad-yasin-vs-the-town-area-on-27-february-1952\",\"name\":\"Mohammad Yasin vs The Town Area ... on 27 February, 1952 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1952-02-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-23T06:16:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammad-yasin-vs-the-town-area-on-27-february-1952#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammad-yasin-vs-the-town-area-on-27-february-1952\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammad-yasin-vs-the-town-area-on-27-february-1952#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mohammad Yasin vs The Town Area … on 27 February, 1952\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mohammad Yasin vs The Town Area ... on 27 February, 1952 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-yasin-vs-the-town-area-on-27-february-1952","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mohammad Yasin vs The Town Area ... on 27 February, 1952 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-yasin-vs-the-town-area-on-27-february-1952","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1952-02-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-23T06:16:27+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-yasin-vs-the-town-area-on-27-february-1952#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-yasin-vs-the-town-area-on-27-february-1952"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mohammad Yasin vs The Town Area … on 27 February, 1952","datePublished":"1952-02-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-23T06:16:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-yasin-vs-the-town-area-on-27-february-1952"},"wordCount":2941,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-yasin-vs-the-town-area-on-27-february-1952#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-yasin-vs-the-town-area-on-27-february-1952","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-yasin-vs-the-town-area-on-27-february-1952","name":"Mohammad Yasin vs The Town Area ... on 27 February, 1952 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1952-02-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-23T06:16:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-yasin-vs-the-town-area-on-27-february-1952#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-yasin-vs-the-town-area-on-27-february-1952"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-yasin-vs-the-town-area-on-27-february-1952#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mohammad Yasin vs The Town Area … on 27 February, 1952"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/119690","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=119690"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/119690\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=119690"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=119690"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=119690"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}