SHIAM ICE AND COLD STORAGE Vs. MUNICIPAL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER no 1 is a registeied partnership of which petitioner no 2 is a Managing partner. PETITIONER no. 2 has established a cold storage in Patti Sher Singh, district Aligarh. For running the cold storage, the petitioner had been sanctioned 70 H. P. electric connection by the U. P. Electricity Board. In addition to the cold storage, the petitioner also established a small ice plant with a 3 H. P. electric motor. This ice plant was being run and operated within the cold storage premises. In exercise of the power under the Cold Storage Order, 1964, a licence was issued to the petitioner by and on behalf of the Government of India in April 1967. In 1975, the Government of Uttar Pradesh issued an Ordinance providing for various things amongst others for fixation of maximum rates at which the potatoes could be stored in the cold storages in Uttar Pradesh.

(2.) ON 19th April, 1976, the Municipal Board, Atrauli, district Aligarh, where the cold storage and the ice plant are situated, framed bye-laws under clauses (d) (dd) sub-section (2) of Section 298 F.

(3.) IT was under the aforesaid clause that the impugned bye-law was framed by the Municipal Board, Atrauli. In Afzal Ullah v. State of U. P., AIR 1964 SC 264 the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the scope of Section 298 (1) and (2). Dealing with Section 298 (2). the Supreme Court observed that specific provisions such as or contained in several clauses of Section 298 (2) are merely illustrative and they can be read as administrative without prejudice to the generality of the power prescribed by Sec. 298 (1). The powers specified by Section 298 (1) are very wide and even if the specific clause of sub-section (2) does not apply under which a bye-law purports to have been made, it can be justified by reference to the requirement of Section 298 (1).