JUDGMENT K.N. Singh, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging constitutional validity of the bye-laws framed by the Town Area Committee Pokhrayan in the district of Kanpur. 2. The Town Area Committee Pokhrayan, respondent No. 2, framed bye-laws under Sec. 30 (a) (2) of the U.P. Town Areas Act read with Sec. 298 of the U.P. Municipalities Act for the purpose of promoting and maintaining health, safety and convenience of the inhabitants of the town area. The impugned bye-laws are directed to regulate the sale and purchase of cattles in the Mela or Bazar within limits of the Town Area Pokhrayan, which were enforced with effect from 29th of July, 1967. A copy of the bye-laws has been filed as Annexure `5' to the writ petition. The bye-laws require registration of cattles which are brought to the market for sale. A registration fee has also been prescribed. Clause 14 of the.bye-laws reads as under : "No person or institution recognised or unrecognised shall hold any market or fair for the sale of cattles within the town area limits or within two miles of the town area limits and no registration of cattle shall be done by any person. Any breach or violation of the bye-laws by any person or institution shall be punishable under Sec. 299(1) of the U.P. Town Areas Act." The bye-laws further provide that in case of violation of any of the bye-laws a fine of Rs. 500/- may be imposed. The title of the bye-laws shows that these were directed to regulate and control the holding of the cattle fair or Mela for the purchase and sale of the cattles within the limits of the town area, but clause 14 imposes an absolute bar against the holding of any such fair or Bazar by any other person or institution except the Town Area Committee itself. No provision has been made in the bye-laws for the grant of licence to any person or institution for carrying on of the trade and business of holding fair or market for the sale and purchase of cattles. The petitioner has assailed the validity of the bye-laws on the ground that it imposes an unreasonable restriction on the petitioner's right to hold cattle fair and to carry on trade and business in the sale and purchase of cattle. The petitioner has assailed the validity of the bye-laws on the ground that it imposes an unreasonable restriction on the petitioner's right to hold cattle fair and to carry on trade and business in the sale and purchase of cattle. The bye-laws have further been assailed on the ground that the bye-laws so framed are in excess of the authority conferred upon the Town Area Committee by the U.P. Town Areas Act and the U.P. Municipalities Act. 3. The petitioner is the Manager of Gram Udyog Intermediate College, Pokhrayan, an institution which carries on teaching and imparting of knowledge in agriculture, rural crafts and industries to students in the district of Kanpur. In the year 1953, certain land including plots Nos. 763 and 768 were acquired by the College for its own use under Land Acquisition Act. Since then, the petitioner has been holding a cattle fair on plot No. 768 which is situate within the limits of the Town Area Pokhrayan. A Veterinary Hospital has been set up near the said plot and the students of the petitioner's college go there for practical training in connection with the cattle diseases. After the abolition of zamindari within the Town Area Pokhrayan, the Town Area Committee claimed that the right to hold cattle fair on plot No. 768 vested in the Town Area Committee. Hence, the petitioner was not entitled to hold or carry on the said fair. The Town Area Committee brought the matter before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who held that the right to carry on cattle fair on plot No. 768 did not vest in the Town Area Committee as the cattle fair was held on Bhumidhari land of the petitioner and the Town Area Committee had no right to interfere with the petitioner's right. The Town Area Committee thereafter framed the impugned bye-laws known as the "Mela Tatha Bazar Men Janwaron Ka Kraya Vikraya, Niyantrikaran U.P. Niyam." The provisions of clause 14 of the bye-laws quoted above absolutely prohibit any person or society to carry on profession of holding a cattle fair (market) within the limits of the Town Area of Pokhrayan or within two miles thereof. After the enforcement of the bye-laws the respondent Town Area Committee, insisted that the petitioner was not entitled to hold cattle fair. The petitioner, however, continued to hold the cattle fair. The Town Area Committee thereupon launched prosecution against the petitioner. After the enforcement of the bye-laws the respondent Town Area Committee, insisted that the petitioner was not entitled to hold cattle fair. The petitioner, however, continued to hold the cattle fair. The Town Area Committee thereupon launched prosecution against the petitioner. Consequently, a complaint was filed by the Administrator of the Town Area Committee, Pokhrayan against the petitioner for violation of clause 14 of the impugned bye-laws. A criminal case has been registered against the petitioner which is pending trial before Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Akbarpur. The petitioner made an application before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate questioning the validity of the bye-laws, with a prayer that the matter be referred to the High Court, as substantial question of law relating to the interpretation of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution was involved. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate did not pass any order on that application. The petitioner thereafter filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 228 of the Constitution assailing the validity of the said bye-laws and the prosecution launched against him by the Town Area Committee, Pokhrayan. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the Town Area Committee had no power to frame any bye-law, to create monopoly in its own favour or to completely prohibit the trade and business of holding cattle market by the petitioner. The Town Area Committee is a creature of the statute, namely, the U.P. Town Areas Act, 1914. It can exercise only those functions and powers which have ben conferred upon it by the Act. The Legislative power conferred on the Town Area Committee is of subordinate nature and it can frame only those bye-laws which are authorised by the Act. It is not disputed that the Town Area Committee is empowered to frame bye-laws for the purpose of promoting or maintaining the health, safety and convenience of the inhabitants of the Town Area. If a cattle fair is allowed to be held within the limits of Town Area and if it is not regulated it may affect the health, safety and convenience of the inhabitants of the Town Area. The Regulation of holding of cattle fair is thus necessary for the health, safety and convenience of the inhabitants of the Town Area. If a cattle fair is allowed to be held within the limits of Town Area and if it is not regulated it may affect the health, safety and convenience of the inhabitants of the Town Area. The Regulation of holding of cattle fair is thus necessary for the health, safety and convenience of the inhabitants of the Town Area. There is no dispute on this question, but the question is what is the extent and scope of power of the Town Area in framing bye-laws for the said purpose of promoting or maintaining the health, safety and convenience of the inhabitants of the Town Area. In the present case the impugned bye-laws do not prohibit holding of cattle fair, instead, the Town Area Committee has assumed exclusive right to hold the cattle fair, to the complete exclusion of other persons. Thus, the Town Area Committee has created a monopoly in its own favour and has indirectly acquired the right to carry on trade and business of holding cattle fair within the limits of the Town Area. As already observed the bye-laws do not make any provision for the issue of any licence for holding cattle fair, it has created monopoly in its own favour. In the absence of any provision for issue of licence the prohibition against the petitioner becomes absolute. The bye-laws have thus brought about a total stoppage of the petitioner's trade and business in a commercial sense. The U.P. Town Area Act, 1914, or the provisions of the U.P. Municipalities Act as made applicable to Town Area do not authorise framing of any such bye-laws creating monopoly in favour of the Town Area and bringing a total stoppage of business, of an individual within the limits of the Town Area. No doubt under certain circumstances a particular trade or business which may be offensive or wholly objectionable to the public morality, may be prohibited; but the Town-Area Committee cannot create monopoly in its own favour to carry on that trade. If a particular trade or business is offensive and opposed to the public morality, a citizen may not be entitled to carry on that trade; but the Town Area Committee cannot acquire any exclusive right to carry on that trade or business. The monopoly created by the Town Area Committee in its own favour is not authorised under the provisions of the Act. The monopoly created by the Town Area Committee in its own favour is not authorised under the provisions of the Act. The creation of monopoly to the prohibition of the petitioner brings total stoppage of petitioners business in violation of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. 5. Learned counsel for the Town, Area Committee Sri S. C. Varma has contended that the impugned bye-laws are protected by sub-clause (ii) of clause (6) of Article 19 of the Constitution. He has urged that the Town Area Committee is a local authority. Hence, it is covered by the definition of State under Article 12 of the Constitution. The Town Area Committee is State under the Constitution, therefore it can frame bye-laws to create monopoly for carrying of trade or business; and such a bye-law is well-protected under Article 19 (6) (ii) of the Constitution. He has placed reliance on the case of Ekadashi Pradhan v. The State of Orissa, AIR 1963 SC 1047 . I have considered the question carefully, but I do not find any merit in it. The State Legislature has wide powers of legislation under the Constitution. It can enact a law to create monopoly in its favour in respect of a trade or business, provided the enactment falls within the legislative competence of the State Legislature as provided by Article 246 and VIIth Schedule to the Constitution. Such a law has, however, to withstand the provisions contained in Part III of the Constitution. Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution ensures right to carry on any occupation, trade or business. Clause (6) of Article 19, however, lays down that the State may make any law imposing restrictions on such right in the interest of general public, but the restrictions are required to be reasonable. The right to create monopoly in favour of the State Government under a law enacted by the State Legislature has been held reasonable by the Supreme Court in a number of cases. but the question which falls for determination is as to whether the respondent Town Area Committee was competent to enact the impugned bye-laws creating monopoly in its own favour. As already discussed, the legislative, competence of a Town Area Committee is limited. It cannot travel beyond the limits prescribed by the Town Areas Act. but the question which falls for determination is as to whether the respondent Town Area Committee was competent to enact the impugned bye-laws creating monopoly in its own favour. As already discussed, the legislative, competence of a Town Area Committee is limited. It cannot travel beyond the limits prescribed by the Town Areas Act. The Act does not confer any power on the Town Area Committee to frame any bye-laws creating monopoly in its own favour and prohibiting the carrying on of any trade or business by any individual or institution. While considering the reasonableness of a law creating monopoly the court is entitled to enquire as to what are the provisions of the said law which are basically essential and necessary for creating the monopoly. The provisions of the U.P. Town Areas Act and Sec. 298 as made applicable to town areas do not require creating of any such monopoly in favour of the town areas. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the impugned bye-laws are not protected by Article 19 (6)(ii) of the Constitution. The case of Ekadashi Pradhan v. The State of Orissa (supra), is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case the validity of bye-law framed by a local authority was not in question. On the other hand, the validity of an Act framed by the State Legislature creating monopoly in its favour was under consideration. After examining the provisions of the Act the Supreme Court held that the monopoly created in favour of the State was valid. The Town Area Committee exercise a subordinate legislative power. Bye-lays framed by it cannot be equated with a law enacted by the State Legislature in exercise of its legislative powers under the Constitution. The law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ekadashi Pradhan v. The State of Orissa does not lend any support to the respondents' contention. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further urged that the impugned bye-laws are outside the scope of the Act and the Town Area Committee has no jurisdiction to frame the same. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further urged that the impugned bye-laws are outside the scope of the Act and the Town Area Committee has no jurisdiction to frame the same. Sec. 298 of the U.P. Municipalities Act has been made applicable to the Town Areas, which lays clown that a Town Area may make bye-laws for the purpose of promoting or maintaining the health, safety and convenience of the inhabitants of the Town Area within its jurisdiction and for that purpose it may regulate markets also. The impugned bye-laws framed by the respondent, Town Area, are however, not directed to regulate any market but it prohibits holding of any cattle market by any other person or institution. The Town Areas Act and Sec. 298 of the U.P. Municipalities Act do not confer any power on the Town Area Committee to frame any such bye-laws. Similar bye-laws creating mono-poly and prohibiting holding of market or carrying on trade or business by a citizen were held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Rashid Ahmad v. The Municipal Board, Kairana, AIR 1950 SC 163 , Mohammad Yasin v. Town Area Committee, Jalalabada, AIR 1952 SC 11 and Tahir Husain v. District Board, Muzaffarnagar, AIR 1954 SC 630 . The law laid down in these cases is fully applicable to the present case. Sec. 298 of the U.P. Municipalities Act as applicable to Town Areas runs as under : "Sec. 298. Power of Board to make bye-laws- (1) A board by special resolution may, and where required by the State Government shall, make bye-laws applicable to the whole or any part of the municipality, consistent with this Act and with any rule, for the purpose of promoting or maintaining the health, safety and convenience of the inhabitant of the municipality and for the furtherance of municipal administration under this Act." The above section lays down that municipal board or a town area committee can frame bye-laws which may be applicable to whole or any part of the municipality for the purpose of framing or maintaining health, safety, convenience of the inhabitants of the municipality or town area for the furtherance of municipal administration. The impugned bye-laws framed by the respondent Town Area Committee are not for the purpose of regulating the market for maintaining health, safety or convenience of inhabitants but for prohibiting the holding of any cattle market by any other individual or institution. In the case of Tahir Husain v. District Board, Muzaffarnagar, similar bye-laws framed by the District Board, Muzaffarnagar in pursuance of Sec. 174 (1) of the U.P. District Board Act, 1922 were held illegal and unconstitutional. The provisions of Sec. 174 (1) of the District Boards Act were similar to those contained in Sec. 298 (1) of the U.P. Municipalities Act. The District. Board had. framed a bye-law which provided that no person was entitled to establish or maintain or run cattle market in the district within the jurisdiction of the Board. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the District Board, Muzaffarnagar had no power under Sec. 174 (1) of the U.P. District Boards Act to frame a bye-law prohibiting a person from carrying a business in the market because the bye-law was not one passed for regulating the market but for prohibiting a person from holding it which was not permissible under the provisions of Sec. 174 of the said Act. Clause 14 of the impugned bye-laws in the present case is similar to by-law No. 2 which was the subject-matter of controversy in Tahir Hussain's case. There is thus an authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court holding such a bye-law illegal and ultra vires of the Act. I, therefore, hold that the Town Area Committee had no jurisdiction to frame the impugned bye-laws. 7. The petitioner is being prosecuted for the violation of clause 14 of the impugned bye-laws. Since the bye-laws are illegal and unconstitutional, the petitioner cannot legally be prosecuted or punished for the violation of clause 14 of the impugned bye-laws, the petitioner's prosecution is, therefore, liable to be quashed. 8. In the result, I allow the petition. The impugned bye-laws are declared unconstitutional and illegal. The respondents are directed not to enforce the bye-laws against the petitioner and the prosecution pending before the sub-Divisional Magistrate, Akbarpur, against the petitioner is quashed. The petitioner is entitled to his costs.