ORDER T.C. Shrivastava, J 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioners against the President of the Gram Panchayat, Harpalpur, Director of Panchayats, Indore, and the State of Madhya Pradesh, to challenge the validity of byelaws framed by the Gram Panchayat of Harpalpur on 13-5-1958 (Annexure 3) for regulating the grain market at Harpalpur under Section 112 of the Vindhya Pradesh Gram Panchayat Ordinance, 1949 (No. XXIV of 1949) hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance. 2. Petitioner No. 1 represents the shopkeepers and businessmen dealing in the purchase and sale of grain at Harpalpur. He is also a commission agent (Kachcha Adatiya) in that village. Petitioner No. 2 represents the cultivators of the village who bring their grain for sale in the market at Harpalpur. The byelaws are impugned on the ground that they are in excess of the powers conferred on the Gram Panchayat under the Ordinance. They are also challenged as unconstitutional on the ground that some of them are discriminatory against certain classes of sellers of grain and some of them impose unreasonable restrictions on the sellers to sell their grain in the market or in the village of Harpalpur. 3. On behalf of the respondents, it is denied that the petitioners can represent the sellers, commission agents or cultivators. It is pleaded that the byelaws have been framed to prevent the exploitation of poor agriculturists by the capitalists and to ensure fair dealings in the market. It is further submitted that the byelaws framed are within the powers granted by the Ordinance and are valid. According to the respondents, they are not discriminatory and impose only reasonable restrictions to protect the cultivators bringing their goods for sale to Harpalpur. 4. The first question which arises in this case is whether the Gram Panchayat has power to frame byelaws under Section 112 of the Ordinance. Reliance in placed by Shri H. L. Khaskalam, Additional Government Advocate, for the State on item (B). Under that item, the Gram Panchayat may frame byelaw's "to prohibit or regulate the use of public streets or other public places by shop-keepers or other individuals or collection of market tolls on public streets". I do not find anything in this item to enable the Gram Panchayat to regulate the working of markets. Under that item, the Gram Panchayat may frame byelaw's "to prohibit or regulate the use of public streets or other public places by shop-keepers or other individuals or collection of market tolls on public streets". I do not find anything in this item to enable the Gram Panchayat to regulate the working of markets. It is clear that this provision is intended only to regulate the use of public places, and it is difficult to stretch that expression to cover the several restrictions as are contained in the byelaws, e. g., that the seller must sell the goods by auction alone, that he cannot negotiate with any private purchaser outside the market to purchase his goods, that the weighing of the goods must be done only by licenced weighmen, and that certain charges for weighing should be paid. Such restrictions have nothing to do with the use of public land for marketing purposes. 5. Reference was made by Shri Khaskalam for the respondents to Sections 15 and 34 of the Ordinance. Under item (h) of Section 15, it is the duty of the Gram Panchayat to regulate "Melas (fairs) and markets within its area.". Under Section 34 (2) "all markets and fairs or such portion thereof as are held upon public land shall be managed and regulated by Gram Panchayat". These provisions are relied upon to support the impugned byelaws. It is pertinent to observe that Section 112 of the Ordinance does not give a general power to frame byelaws "to carry out the purposes of the Ordinance". Accordingly, the power to frame byelaws has to be confined to the heads specified in Section 112, and the mere fact that a particular matter is within the duties of the Gram Panchayat or a power is given to deal with a certain subject by the Gram Panchayat does not confer upon it the power to frame byelaws. It is true that under Section 34 the Gram Panchayat has the power to manage and regulate markets, but this power has to be exercised in accordance with the Ordinance As there is no power given to the Gram Panchayat to frame a byelaw, it appears that the matter has to be regulated by rules framed under Section 110 or by byelaws framed by the prescribed authority under Section 111 of the Ordinance. The Gram Panchayat itself cannot impose any restrictions on the buyers and sellers, much less can it penalise the persons disobeying such restrictions which have no legal sanction behind them. 6. Reference was made to the Central Provinces and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922, but under Section 179 of that Act there is a specific power given to the Municipalities for regulating the use of markets and any byelaws made by a Municipality for this purpose can, therefore, be justified on the basis of this provision. In the Central Provinces and Berar Local Government Act, 1948, also there is a similar power to frame byelaws under Section 183 of that Act "for carrying out the provisions and intention of the Act". This power is general enough to support byelaws on any of the matters within the jurisdiction of the Janapada Sabha. 7. Reference was also made to the Central Provinces and Berar Panchayats Act, 1946. A power to frame byelaws has been given in Section 54 of that Act "generally for carrying out all or any of\he purposes of this Act". The power is thus very wide and would extend to framing byelaws for giving effect to any provisions of the Act, which imposes any duty or gives any power to the Gram Panchayat. The byelaws framed under this Act cannot, therefore, be relied upon to support the validity of the byelaws framed under Section 112 of the Vindhya Pradesh Gram Panchayat Ordinance which grants a very restricted power. It is not, therefore, unusual to find in the Ordinance that although a power has been given to the Gram Panchayats to manage and regulate markets, no power has been given to frame byelaws on the subject, and the necessary rules have to be framed by the State Government. 8. In this view I find that the Gram Panchayat of Harpalpur had no authority to frame the byelaws as contained in Annexure 3. They are, therefore, ultra vires. 9. Shri K. B. Sinha for the petitioners has attacked the provision in byelaw No.(6) as discriminatory. It compels a person bringing his goods for sale on bullock-carts to sell them by auction and does not impose a similar restriction on persons bringing goods by trucks or on horse-back or by other means of transport. They are, therefore, ultra vires. 9. Shri K. B. Sinha for the petitioners has attacked the provision in byelaw No.(6) as discriminatory. It compels a person bringing his goods for sale on bullock-carts to sell them by auction and does not impose a similar restriction on persons bringing goods by trucks or on horse-back or by other means of transport. Further, he has attacked the restriction that a feller shall not sell his goods by private negotiations as unreasonable It is not necessary for me to go in to the merits of these contentions in view of my finding that the byelaws themselves are without any legal power. 10. In the result, the petition is allowed and the byelaws framed by the Gram Panchayat of Harpalpur as contained in Annexure 3 are hereby quashed as illegal and ultra vires. The costs of this petition shall be borne as incurred. Petition allowed.