Judgment

SHELAT, J. : (K. Subba Rao CJI. Concurring) - We regret our inability to agree with the conclusion reached by Bachawat, J.

2. The appellant, a non-tribal, started trading at Aijal, Mizo District, in 1957 under a temporary licence issued by the Mizo District Council investing about Rs. 50, 000 therein. The temporary licence could be issued at a time for a year only and therefore he applied for and obtained its renewal from time to time up to May 31, 1960. He applied for a further renewal whereupon the Executive Committee of the District Council passed an order dated July 1l, 1960 refusing any further renewal and directing him to remove his properties from the District by the end of July 1960 and imposed a fine of Rs. 500 in case he failed to comply with it.

3. The appellant filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Assam against the said order contending that the said order was mala fide in the sense that though the reason given for refusal was that the number of non-tribal traders had reached the maximum the Committee had in fact granted licences to new traders, and that the said order and Section 3 of the Lushai Hills District (Trading by non-Tribals) Regulation, 2 of 1953 were invalid being violative of Article19 (1) (e) and (g) of the Constitution. The High Court struck down that part of the said order which directed him to remove his properties from the District and which imposed fine but dismissed the rest of the petition, firstly, on the ground of delay and secondly on the ground that the said order was a valid order and was not discriminatory. The High Court also repelled the contention that the power of the Council was unrestricted or arbitrary. The High Court observed :

"The power cannot be said to be unrestricted. The licence is to be granted or refused having regard to the underlying object of the enactment. This Regulation was passed in pursuance of the provisions of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution which gives specific power to, the District Council to pass regulations affecting the right of non-Tribals to trade within the tribal areas and in order to effect the purpose underlying the provision of the Sixth Schedule this Regulation was enacted. If having regard to the scope of trade in that locality the number of licences is restricted by the authorities, it cannot be said that the exercise of such a power is discriminatory."

This appeal by special leave challenges the correctness of this order by which the High Court dismissed the petition.

4. The appellant s contention before us was that the said order was invalid as it was based on an invalid provision of law which infringed his fundamental right to carry on business at Aijal under Art. 19 (1) (g), that the refusal to allow him to carry on his business amounted to an unreasonable restriction and that Section 3 of the Regulation which empowers the Council to refuse to permit him to carry on business was invalid as it conferred on the Council an arbitrary and uncanalized power enabling it to refuse to grant a licence or its renewal according to its sweet will.

5. The Sixth Schedule to the Constitution constitutes the Mizo District, formerly known as the Lushai Hills District, as an autonomous district. Paragraph 10 of that Schedule provides for the power of the District Council to make Regulations for the control of money-lending and trading by non-tribals. Clauses l and 2 of that paragraph read as under:

(1) The District Council of an autonomous district may make regulations for the regulation and control of money-lending or trading within the district by persons other than Scheduled Tribes resident in the District.

(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such regulations may

(a) prescribe that no one except the holder of a licence issued in that behalf shall carry on the business of money-lending;

(b) * * * * *

(c) * * * * *

(d) prescribe that no person who is not a member of the Sche