JUDGMENT G.C. Mathur, J. - According to the petitioner, there is a Ramlila ground in the district of Farrukhabad which is situate beyond the limits of the Municipal Board of Farrukhabad. The petitioner has obtained a licence from the Ramlila Committee for holding a market for the sale of potatoes on this ground. The petitioner complains that the municipal authorities are interfering with his right to hold the market on this ground and have even launched prosecutions against certain persons who keep shops on this ground under per. mission from the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the Municipal Board has no legal right to interfere either with the petitioner in holding the market or with any other person who comes to sell potatoes in this market with the permission of the petitioner. No counter-affidavit has been filed and no one has appeared to oppose the petition. The petition has therefore, to be decided on the un-controverted statements made in the petition and in the affidavit accompanying the writ petition. 2. It appears that under a notification dated November 11, 1920, certain bye laws were framed for regulating the markets of vegetables and fruits etc. in the Farrukhabad-cum-Fatehgarh Municipality. Shri Man Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, has shown me a copy of this notification. The notification recites that it was made under Section 298, Heading 'F' of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916. The bye-law made is only one and reads thus: "No person shall keep, establish or maintain a market, other than on a Municipal or nazul land or held by Municipal Board's permission, for wholesale or retail sale of fruits or vegetables including betels within Farrukhabad-cum-Fatehgarh Municipality without first obtaining a licence therefor, or otherwise than in accordance with the conditions of such licence." 3. On the face of it, the bye-law was made under Heading 'F' of Section 298 of the U. P. Municipalities Act and was operative within the limits of the Municipal Board. By Notification no. On the face of it, the bye-law was made under Heading 'F' of Section 298 of the U. P. Municipalities Act and was operative within the limits of the Municipal Board. By Notification no. 3607/XXIII-29-54 dated July 8, 1954, two amendments were introduced in the bye-law: (1) The words "but excluding tobacco and potatoes" were added after the words "including betels"; and (2) the following proviso was added at the end of the bye-law: "Provided that for purposes of keeping, establishing and maintaining markets, an area of one mile all round the municipal limits of Farrukhabad-cum-Fatehgarh Municipality shall be deemed within those d limits." 4. Subsequently, by Notification no. 888/ XXIII-29 (1) -54 dated January 12, 1961, the bye-law was again amended and the words "but excluding tobacco and potatoes" introduced by the amendment of 1954 were deleted. The net result is that the holding of a market for the sale of potatoes within an area of one mile all round the municipal limits of Farrukhabad-cum-Fatehgarh Municipality is subject to the bye-law. The petitioner's market is situate outside the municipal limits but apparently within one mile of it. The question for consideration is whether the bye-law was legally made applicable to an area outside the municipal limits. 5. As stated above, the bye-law was made under Heading 'F' of Section 298 of the U. P. Municipalities Act. Section 241 of the Act which provides for licencing of markets and shops for sale of certain articles including fruits and vegetables etc., does not make any provision that a bye-law regulating such markets can be made applicable outside the municipal limits. Shri Man Singh has drawn my attention to sub-Sec. (3) of Section 245 under which alone a power is given to make the bye-law applicable outside the municipal limits. Section 245 deals with the regulation of offensive 4, trades. Sub-Sec. (3) thereof provides : "245 (3) The State Government may, by notification, make the provisions of this section, or of any bye-law made under heading G of Section 298, applicable to any area beyond the municipality lying within a distance of a mile from the municipal boundary." 6. On its terms, the sub-section permits the making of the provisions applicable to an area beyond the municipal limits only of such bye-laws as have been made under heading 'G' of Section 298. Heading 'G' also relates to offensive trades. On its terms, the sub-section permits the making of the provisions applicable to an area beyond the municipal limits only of such bye-laws as have been made under heading 'G' of Section 298. Heading 'G' also relates to offensive trades. The bye-laws in question have not been made under Heading 'G' of Section 298 but have been made under Heading 'F' of that section. Such bye-laws could not legally be made applicable beyond the municipal limits by virtue of sub-Sec. (3) of Section 245. There does not appear to be any other provision in the U. P. Municipalities Act permitting the extension of bye-laws made under Heading 'F' of Section 298 to areas lying outside the municipal limits. I am, therefore, constrained to hold that the amendment introduced by the notification of July 8, 1954, adding a proviso to the bye-laws, making the bye-laws applicable to an area of one mile all round the municipal limits of Farrukhabad-cum-Fatehgarh Municipality was ultra vires and void. 7. For the reasons stated above, I allow this writ petition and quash the proviso added to the bye-law by the notification dated July 8, 1954. I further direct that the Municipal Board shall not interfere f with the petitioner in the holding of the market on the Ramlila ground situate outside the municipal limits. Since no one has appeared to oppose the petition, there will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.