The power of a Municipal Board to grant or refuse a license under Section 235 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, is not arbitrary or capricious and is guided by the principles of public safety, convenience, and health. The absence of bye-laws framed under Section 90 of the Act does not affect the jurisdiction of the Board to grant or refuse a license.

C. M. LODHA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby the petitioner Abdul Gani has prayed that an appropriate writ, direction or order may be issued to the Municipal Board, Banner directing the latter not to stop the petitioner from carrying on business of selling meat in a shop taken on rent by him in the Post Office lane, Barmer, on 7-4-1972. The petitioners case is that he applied to the Administrator, Municipal Board, Banner on 10-4-1972 for granting him a licence to open a meat shop in the Sardar Building, but the Administrator wrongly refused to grant a licence on the ground that it was not in the interest of public health and public convenience to allow the petitioner to carry on business of selling meat in the shop in question. It appears from the averments made in the writ petition that in spite of the permission sought for having been refused the petitioner started selling meat in that shop and consequently the Municipal Board took steps to close it down. This led to the filation of the writ petition.

( 2 ) THE action of the Municipal Board in refusing the licence asked for by the petitioner has been challenged on the following three grounds:

1. That the business of selling meat is carried on by three other persons namely, Allahbux, Safi Mohammad, and Bhikaram in the shops adjacent to the petitioners shop in the same building and consequently the ground of public inconvenience adopted by the Board in refusing permission to the petitioner is mala fide. 2. That the Board has not framed bye-laws in this respect as required by section 90 (b) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act No. 38 of 1959 (which will hereinafter be called the Act) and in absence of such bye-laws the board had no jurisdiction to interfere with the petitioners business o selling meat anywhere within the limits of the Municipal Board. 3. That the non-petitioners act in asking the petitioner to stop selling meat in the shop in question amounts to infringement of the petitioners fundamental right to carry on any occupation, trade or business guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India.

( 3 ) THE petition has been opposed on behalf of the Municipal Board, Banner which has also filed a written reply. It has been admitted by the Board that no bye-laws have been framed by it under Section 90 (b) of the Act, but it is contended that under Section 235 of the Act it was lawful for the Board to refuse the permission asked for by the petitioner to carry on the business of selling meat in the shop in question for reasons of public health and convenience. It has also been urged that there are no meat shops near the shop in which the petitioner wants to do business of selling meat. It is stated that formerly Allahbux, Bhikaram and Safi mohammad had started selling meat in shops Nos. 3, 4 and 5 as shown in the plan ex. A-5 but the Executive Officer of the Municipal Board by his order dated 22-21969 directed the closure of these shops as it amounted to public nuisance and thereupon Allah Bux, Bhikaram and Safi Mohammad filed writ petitions in this court and ultimately agreed to shift their business in the blind alley to shops Nos. 7, 8 and 9 and withdrew their writ petitions. It may be stated here that the petitioner wanted permission to carry on business of selling meat in shop No. 4 formerly occupied by Bhikaram. In short all the grounds relied upon by the petitioner in his writ petition were traversed by the Municipal Board in its reply.

( 4 ) AFTER having heard learned counsel for the parties I have come to the conclusion that there is no force in any of the grounds relied upon by the petitioner.

( 5 ) IT is clear from Ex. A-6, Ex. A-7 and Ex. A-8 that Allah Bux, Bhikaram and Safi mohammad have closed down business of selling meat in shops Nos. 7, 8 and 9, situated in a blind alley and did not press their writ applications. It further appears from an objection filed by Allah Bux and Safi Mo