JUDGMENT S.C. Manchanda, J. - This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by Ghulam Hussain, wholesale vegetable and fruit commission dealer, carrying on business in the Town Area of Miranpur, challenging the demand of licence fee of Rs. 100/-for carrying on his business in the suit and vegetable market for 1960-61. 2. The petitioner carried of on business of commission agency in fruits and vegetable from the year 1958-59 in partnership with one Jagdish Prasad. A licence was duly taken by Sri Jagdish Prasad in his name. In the assessment year 1959-60, the petitioner started this commission agency in fruits and vegetable taking over the goodwill of the former business. By a notice dated the 25th May, 1959 the petitioner was required by the Town Area Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) to obtain a licence under the bye-laws, and in the event of non-compliance was informed that he would be prosecuted under the Act. The petitioner did not comply and he was prosecuted. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate convicted him and sentenced him to Rs. 40/- as fine and Re. 1/- per day in default of obtaining a licence. The revision against his conviction is pending and the proceedings have been stayed by an order of this Court dated the 12th August 1960. The Town Area Committee served an other notice dated the 15th May 1960 requiring him to obtain a licence for 1960-61 for carrying on the business of commission agency in vegetables by the payment of Rs. 100/- as licence fee within three days. The petitioner replied that as a revision for the earlier year was pending no action should be taken against him. Prosecution, however, was launched and the 10th of August 1960 was fixed for appearance of the petitioner. The present writ petition was filed on the 12th of August 1960 and the aforesaid stay order obtained. 3. According to the opposite parties, the licence and the fee has been demanded by virtue of the bye-laws framed under Sec. 27 Cl. (h), (i) and (j) read with Sec. 298(1) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 as applied to the Town Area Miranpur, published on the 9th of April, 1956, and enforced from the 1st April, 1958. Sec. 27 gives the power to the Committee to frame bye-laws for sanitation etc. (h), (i) and (j) read with Sec. 298(1) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 as applied to the Town Area Miranpur, published on the 9th of April, 1956, and enforced from the 1st April, 1958. Sec. 27 gives the power to the Committee to frame bye-laws for sanitation etc. In particular sub-clause (h) provides for condemnation and destruction of food which is unfit for human consumption, sub-Clause (1) for the prohibition for reasons of public health of the use of any place for the sale of fish, fruit, vegetables or sweetmeats in default of a licence granted by the Committee or otherwise than in accordance with the conditions of the licence; sub-Cl (j) the fixing of the condition subject to which and the circumstances in which and the areas of localities in respect of which licence for the sale of fish, fruit, vegetables or sweetmeats may be granted, refused, suspended or withdrawn. 4. A bye-law can therefore validly be framed requiring that a licence be taken out by any person who uses any place within the town area for the sale of vegetables. The conditions on which that licence can be given can also be provided. 5. The only question is whether fixing of the condition includes the power to levy a licence fee. This is the only contention which has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner according to whom licence can be demanded but no fee can be levied as there is no provision in the Town Areas Act or the Municipalities Act as made applicable to the Town Areas for the levy of any such licence fee on persons carrying on the sale of vegetables and fruit in privately owned shops and not owned by the Town Area. Reliance was placed by Sri G. D. Srivastava, the learned counsel for the petitioner, on Mohammad Yasin v. Town Area Committee of Jalalabad, A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 115 and Asa Ram v. District Board, Muzaffarnagar, A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 480. The former case was no doubt one in which there was a virtual monopoly granted by the Town Area Committee to one person, the effect whereof was more or less to stifle the carrying on of business by other wholesalers, and the levy of a fee was held to be ultra vires the powers of the Committee. The former case was no doubt one in which there was a virtual monopoly granted by the Town Area Committee to one person, the effect whereof was more or less to stifle the carrying on of business by other wholesalers, and the levy of a fee was held to be ultra vires the powers of the Committee. The decision of the Supreme Court, however did not rest on the fact that the bye-laws more or less prohibited anybody from dealing in vegetable and fruits but on the wider question that - "A licence fee on a business not only takes away the property of the licensee but also operates as a restriction on his right to carry on his business, for without payment of such fee the business cannot be carried on at all. This aspect of the matter was not raised or considered in the case relied on by the learned counsel, and that case, therefore, has no application to the facts of this case. Under Article 19(1) (g) the citizen has the right to carry on any occupation, trade or business which right under that clause is apparently to be unfettered. The only restriction to this unfettered right is the authority of the State to make a law relating to carrying on of such occupation, trade or business as mentioned in Cl. (6) of that article as amended by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951. If, therefore the licence fee cannot be justified on the basis of any valid law no question of its reasonableness can arise, for an illegal impost must at all times be an unreasonable restriction and will necessarily infringe the right of the citizen to carry on his occupation, trade or business under Article 19(1)(g)." 6. It was also pointed out that the Provincial Government by a notification under Sec. 38 of the U.P. Town Areas Act had extended the provisions of Sec. 293(1) and 298(2)(d) of the U.P. Municipalities Act to all Town Areas in the United Provinces but there was no notification whereby Sec. 294 of the U. P. Municipalities Act was extended to the Town Area Committee. On consideration of these provisions it was held - "In our opinion, the bye-laws which impose a charge on the whole sale dealer in the shape of the prescribed fee, irrespective of any use of occupation by him of immovable property vested in or entrusted to the management of the Town Area Committee including any public street, are obviously ultra vires the powers of the . respondent committee and, therefore the bye-laws cannot be said to constitute a valid law which alone may, under Article 19(6) of the Constitution, impose restriction on the right conferred by Article 19(1) (g). In the absence of any valid law authorising it, such illegal imposition must undoubtedly operate as an illegal restraint and must infringe the unfettered right of the wholesale dealer to carry on his occupation, trade or business which is guaranteed to him by Article 19(1) (g) of our Constitution." 7. In Asa Ram's case A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 480 the Supreme Court in referring to its earlier decision in Mohammad Yasin's case, A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 115 reiterated, "The High Court seems to have lost sight of the distinction between granting licence which depends on the power of regulation and levying of licence fee which can only be levied if there is specific provision to that effect in the law. In Mohammad Yasin v. Town Area Committee, A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 115 it was decided that as there was no provision authorising a Town Area Committee to levy licence fee it could not do so. That however did not mean that "regulation" did not include the power of issuing licence though in the absence of a provision for charging a licence fee the licence must be issued without any charge. Bye-laws require issue of a licence in order to regulate trade or ailing which a Town Area Committee regulates under Sec. 26(a) of he Town Areas Act." 8. These two authorities were attempted to be distinguished by learned counsel for the opposite party on the ground that the facts there were peculiar and further that in Mohd Yasin's case, A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 115 the specific claim on behalf of the Committee was that the notification under Sec. 38 of the Town Areas Act was issued extending the provisions of Sec. 298 (2) (d) of the U.P. Municipalities Act whereas in the instant case the notification was under Sec. 298(1) of the Municipalities Act. The distinction sought to be made is not one of substance, and, if anything, the position of this committee is worse. The sections of the United Provinces Municipalities Act which have been applied by notification are set out at page 63 of the Town Areas Manual (corrected upto 1951). Sec. 298 (1) of the Municipalities Act was made applicable by a notification dated the 19th October 1949. That only gives the power to the Town Area Committee to make bye-laws for the purpose of promoting or maintaining or preventing danger to the health of the inhabitants of the Town Area. It does not give the power to levy any fees for the issue of licence. The notification applying the provisions of Sec. 298 to the Town Areas was made by notification of the 9th of April 1956 and in force from the 1st of April 1958. This is the only provision under which the Town Area has been given the power to charge fees. But here again the notification restricts the charging of fees to cases where Sec. 293 (1) of the Municipalities Act would be applicable. Even the provisions of Sec. 294 which is a general provision of the Municipalities Act for levy of fees has not been made applicable by any notification to the Town Areas. Sec. 293(1) of the U.P. Municipalities Act reads-- "293 (1). The Town Area Committee may charge fees to be fixed by bye-law or by public auction or by agreement, for the use or occupation (otherwise than under a lease) of any immovable property vested in, or entrusted to the management of the Town Area Committee, including any public street or place of which it allows the use or occupation whether by allowing a protection thereon or otherwise." 9. Therefore under Sec. 293(1) the power to levy a licence fee or charge is severely restricted to cases of immovable property vested in, or entrusted to the management of "the Municipal Board "the Town Area and used or occupied by the licensee. In the present case, as already observed, the licensee was not at all occupying or using any immovable property which can be said to be vested in or entrusted to the management of the Town Area Committee. He was in occupation of a privately owned shop. In the present case, as already observed, the licensee was not at all occupying or using any immovable property which can be said to be vested in or entrusted to the management of the Town Area Committee. He was in occupation of a privately owned shop. This provision, therefore, has no application and no licence fee could have been validly imposed, under Sec. 293(1) of the Municipalities Ac". The only other provision is Sec. 294 which empowers the Board to charge a fee to be fixed. That provision however has not been extended to the Town Areas. There thus being no provision under which a licence fee could have been charged, the levy of the licence fee in the instant case must be held to be ultra vires the powers of the opposite party. It may be possible to argue that where there is the power to regularise trade or calling for granting licence such as exists under Sec. 27(h) (i) (j) of the Town Areas Act by necessary implication, there must also be the power to pro-vide for covering the costs of issuing the licence and regulating the business. But that will not be in consonance with the view taken by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases which require that a licence fee can only be levied by express provision of law. 10. For the reasons given above the Town Area Committee Miranpur, District Muzaffarnagar is directed to refrain from prohibiting the petitioner from carrying on the business of a wholesale dealer in fruits and vegetable within the limits of Miranpur Town Area Committee until proper and valid bye-laws in accordance with the statutory provisions are framed. 11. The petition is accordingly allowed with costs.