RAZIA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are six revisions by six different persons whose conviction by a magistrate for contravening a bye-law framed by the Najibabad Municipal Board, under Clause (e), item H, List I, of Sub-section (2) of Section 298, of the U. P. Municipalities Act (II of 1916), prohibiting public prostitutes from residing and from the keeping of brothels within the limits of the municipality, has been upheld by the Sessions Judge on appeal.

(2.) Two points have been urged on behalf of the applicants. One is that the Municipal Board of Najibabad could not frame a bye-law prohibiting the residence of, or the keeping of brothels by, public prostitutes within the entire limits of the municipality, and the other is that, it being not held by the courts below that the applicants were public prostitutes, they could not be convicted for contravening the aforesaid bye-law.

(3.) Section 298 of the Municipalities Act empowers a board to make bye-laws by special resolution applicable to the whole or any part of the municipality for the purpose of promoting or maintaining the health, safety and convenience of the inhabitants of the municipality and for the furtherance of municipal administration under the Act. Sub-section (2) of this section lays down that in particular, & without prejudice to the generality of the power conferred by Sub-section (1), the board may make any bye-law as described in List I mentioned in the sub-section. It follows that the power of the Board to make any bye-law is very general in view of Sub-section (1) of Section 298 and that this general power is not in any way restricted by the provisions of Sub-section (2). The bye-law to be framed by the municipality can be made applicable to the whole or any part of the municipality. The purpose of Sub-section (2) is simply to lay down explicitly for facility the purposes for which bye-laws could be made. In this view of the matter, the impugned bye-law cannot be said to be outside the jurisdiction of the board to frame, the bye-law itself being a reasonable one and for the purpose of promoting or maintaining the health of the inhabitants of the municipality. Such bye-law has been held to be reasonable in the case of Sona Bai v. The Municipality of Agra 1956 All LJ 591: (AIR 1956 All 736) (A) when its validity was questioned on the ground that it contravened the fundamental rights given by Article 19 of the Constitution. The constitutional validity of the bye-law has not been questioned before us either on the ground that it contravened the provisions of Article 19 or Article 14.