JUDGMENT S. Velu Pillai, J. 1. These four second appeals arise out of four of six suits, filed by owners of cattle sheds, situated within the limits of Mattancherry Municipality, who carry on milk trade, for quashing the orders of the Municipal Council refusing to issue licences to them for the year 1957-58 and for other reliefs. In particular, they impeached Ex. D 9, dated the 3rd September 1956, a resolution of the Council banning the keeping of buffaloes within Municipal limits. Although the Munsiff who tried the suits found on all the issues raised for trial, the District Judge in appeal dismissed the suits on the sole finding that Ex. D 9 was ultra vires the powers of the Council; the year for which the licences were applied for had expired. It was agreed before me, that the only question requiring consideration in these second appeals is whether Ex. D 9 is valid or not. 2. The resolution in terms, imposed a prohibition against the keeping of buffaloes for any purpose whatsoever within Mattancherry Municipal limits, but learned counsel appearing for the Municipality, which is the appellant in these second appeals explained, that the object of the resolution was to ban the keeping of buffaloes for deriving profit therefrom, and not for milk supply for home consumption and that the appellant contended only for the existence of such a power in it. At the time the resolution was passed, the Municipality was governed by the Cochin Municipal Act, 18 of 1113, which has now been superseded by the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1960, Act 14 of 1961. This however need not detain me in the consideration of these appeals, for the relevant provisions are parallel in both enactments. The provisions which have been relied on for the appellant are S.242, 255 and 264 of the Cochin Act. The relevant part of S.255 is as follows:- "255. This however need not detain me in the consideration of these appeals, for the relevant provisions are parallel in both enactments. The provisions which have been relied on for the appellant are S.242, 255 and 264 of the Cochin Act. The relevant part of S.255 is as follows:- "255. (1) The Council may publish by notification in the Cochin Government Gazette and by beat of drum that no place within Municipal limits or at a distance within one mile of such limits shall be used for any one or more of the purposes specified in Schedule V without the licence of the executive authority and except in accordance with the conditions specified therein." Purpose (k) in Schedule V, which is relevant, is "keeping together twenty or more sheep or goats or ten or more pigs or head of cattle. In these cases, the applications for licences appear to have stated the number of buffaloes kept for trade as more than ten. Under S.255(1) a licence is needed for using a place within Municipal limits for keeping ten or more buffaloes. S.264 provides for the issue of licences for carrying on milk trade and enacts as follows:-- "264. (1) No person shall without or otherwise than in conformity with a licence from the executive authority-- (a) carry on within the Municipality the trade or business of a dealer in or importer or seller or hawker of milk or dairy produce; (b) use any place in the Municipality for the sale of milk or dairy produce: Provided that no such licence shall be given to any person who is suffering from a dangerous disease. (2) Such licence may be refused or may be granted on such conditions as the executive authority may deem necessary which may extend to the construction, ventilation, conservancy, supervision and inspection of the premises, whether within or without municipal limits, where the animals from which the milk supply is derived are kept." Sub-s.(2) which is pertinent, prescribes generally the conditions which the executive authority of the Municipality may deem fit to impose while granting a licence under the section. It is patent that the provisions of both S.255 and 264 are regulatory in character and not prohibitory. 3. It is patent that the provisions of both S.255 and 264 are regulatory in character and not prohibitory. 3. Learned counsel relied almost entirely on S.242 of the Cochin Act which rads, "no person shall keep any animal on his premises so as to be a nuisance or so as to be dangerous." it seems to me, that the better form, as suggested by learned counsel for the respondents would have been, to have the words "so as to be a danger" instead of "so as to be dangerous" to be in keeping with the use of the word "nuisance" which is a noun. However, the question is whether a power to prohibit the keeping of buffaloes for profit can be read into S.242 as vested in the Council. It must at once, be stated, that learned counsel for the appellant did not contend, that under S.242, the keeping of buffaloes, regardless of their number, for domestic purpose could be prohibited; he only contended that under that section the Municipality is competent to prohibit the keeping of buffaloes for profit whatever be their number. The conferment of such power was stated to be necessary, for the reason, that from its long experience, the Municipality has learned that keeping of buffaloes for profit was per se a nuisance. I cannot find my way to subscribe to this view of S.242. The section does not differentiate animals according to the purpose for which they are kept, that is whether they are kept for profit or for domestic use. The argument implies, that if there are, say only two buffaloes for domestic use they can be kept, but not if they are for profit; similarly, if a few persons combine and keep more than ten buffaloes for domestic use, such keeping is permissible, but not if they are kept for profit. In my judgment what is banned by S.242 is the keeping of an animal or animals in a particular manner. For example, if a ferocious or wild animal is brought well caged and within bounds as by a circus troupe, S.242 does not justify the imposition of total ban against its entry or its keeping within the limits of the Municipality but if no such precaution is taken the power under S.242 may be resorted to. For example, if a ferocious or wild animal is brought well caged and within bounds as by a circus troupe, S.242 does not justify the imposition of total ban against its entry or its keeping within the limits of the Municipality but if no such precaution is taken the power under S.242 may be resorted to. Similarly, if animals can be kept, whatever be their number, whether for profit or for domestic purpose, in such a state that their keeping constitutes no nuisance, the power under S.242 cannot avail; once such keeping proves to be a nuisance the ban under S.242 is attracted. S.242 appears to be a preface to other sections to follow such as, S.248 to 254 regarding animals, S.255 in so far as it is applicable to sheds for keeping animals, and S.264 relating to milk trade. 4. In this connection, S.264 seems to throw some light on the true construction of S.242, for S.264 sub-s.(2) extracted above, does contemplate the keeping of cattle for the purpose of milk trade within municipal limits as well. This in my opinion furnishes a complete answer to the contention, that S.242 enacts a total prohibition against the keeping of animals within such limits for the purpose of trade. Coming to the Kerala Act, S.347 which empowers the Municipal Council to make by laws on various matters, mentions as item (17), the power to make bye laws. "For the inspection of milch cattle and the regulation of the ventilation, lighting cleaning, drainage, and water supply of dairies and cattle sheds in the occupation of persons following the trade of dairyman or milk seller." This also throws light on the true meaning of the corresponding provision. It therefore follows, that the resolution Ex. D 9 imposing a total prohibition against the keeping of buffaloes for profit within municipal limits irrespective of whether such keeping in a particular case constitutes a nuisance or not, cannot be supported on the terms of S.242. Learned counsel invited my attention to the prevailing condition in certain areas of the Mattancherry Municipality and said that the keeping of a large number of buffaloes within its limits deserves to be prohibited; the object may be laudable; but the Municipality shall be well advised in seeking appropriate amendments of the statute and thereby clothing itself with the necessary power. No other section of the Act as it stands was relied on as conferring the requisite power on the Municipality. It is unnecessary to examine the validity of Exts. P 14 and P 25, notices issued by the Municipality, as the years to which they relate have expired. In the result, these second appeals are dismissed with costs.