JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, C.J. - The petitioners claim that they carry on the business of producing and selling hides, skins and bones by taking dead animals and preparing the hides and bones from them. The carcasses of cattle used by the petitioner are taken from the erstwhile owners of the dead animals. 2. The respondent Zila Parishad has framed bye-laws. Thereunder they auction the right to gather carcasses of dead animals within the territory of the Zila Parishad. The auction purchaser of such right interferes with the petitioners carrying on their business. He claims to be exclusively entitled to the carcasses of dead animals within the territories of the Zila Parishad. The petitioners are aggrieved at this action of the Zila Parishad and their contractors. They claim that the carcasses of the dead animals do not vest in the State or Zila Parishad or their contractors. They remain in the owner of the dead animals. They are entitled to carry on their business. The Zila Parishad has no right to create monopoly in such trade in favour of any individual. The bye-laws in so far as they seek to create a monopoly are ultra vires the powers of the Zila Parishad. 3. The Zila Parishad does not accept these submissions. It holds that in exercise of the regulatory power conferred by the Zila Parishad Act, the Zila Parishad has ample power to frame bye-laws to regulate trades including abnoxious trades. 4. In Suraj Pal v. Zila Parishad Banda (1978 A. W. C. 28], a division Bench of this Court considered previous decisions of this court-and ultimately came to the conclusion that the Zila Par shad has no power to frame bye-laws with a view to create a monopoly in any individual even by giving the right to collect or store carcasses to the highest bidder at an auction. Such an auction-purchaser cannot have the exclusive right to carry on the business of extracting hides and bones from tire carcasses of dead animals. In that case, the Bench however, made it clear that the bye-laws in so far as they provide for licensing of persons engaged in activities of removing carcasses and Having them, arc valid. 5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for either party but we are rot satisfied that the aforesaid decision of this court requires reconsideration. In that case, the Bench however, made it clear that the bye-laws in so far as they provide for licensing of persons engaged in activities of removing carcasses and Having them, arc valid. 5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for either party but we are rot satisfied that the aforesaid decision of this court requires reconsideration. We are in respectfully agreement with the opinion expressed in that decision. 6. Mr. R. K. Jain, learned counsel for the Zila Parishad. submitted that it has been the experience of the respondent Zila Parishad that the petitioners dont sometimes remove the dead bodies of diseased animals. In order to safeguard the health of the residents of the town. It is necessary that such dead bodies ate removed forthwith. The respondent Zila Parishad should not be restrained from carrying out this work. It is clear that though the Zila Parishad cannot by framing bye laws create a monopoly in itself, yet it is not deprived of from carrying out its statutory obligation. If the petitioners do not remove any carcasses for any reason, it shall be the duty of the Zila parishad to do so in the interest of the health of the inhabitants. The petitioners also cannot claim monopoly of this trade. The Zila Parishad can also enter into this activity or trade. 7. In the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed in part, the respondent Zila Parishad is directed not to interfere with the petitioners carrying on the business or activity of hides, bones and skins, etc. from the carcasses of dead animals. It shall, however, be open to the Zila Parishad to enforce the bye-laws by requiring the petitioners to take the requisite licence before they continue/ this business. There will be no order as to costs.