Judgement B. D. AGARWAL; J.: - The Nagar Palika, Chitrakut Dham Karwi in district Banda framed certain bye-laws in the exercise of powers under Section 298 (2) F (a) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1915. The bye-laws in question in Writ Petition No. 3800 of 1975 relate to the holding of cattle market, Bye-law No. 5 says that the cattle market shall be held on the land held or taken an rent by the Nagar Palika as the Palika may decide. Bye-law No. 6 provides that none residing within the limits of the Nagar Palika shall have the right to hold cattle market on his own land except with the Permission of the Nagar Palika. According to bye-law No. 7 the Board is competent under the bye-laws to hold the cattle market itself or to auction the right to hold such market for one year each on temporary basis. The sale and purchase of cattle in the market shall have to be got registered with the Registration Officer by the seller or the buyer as the case may be, upon payment of registration fee as enumerated in the Schedule contained in bye-law No. 12. 2. In Writ Petition No. 6562 of l975 the bye-laws impugned relate to the vegetables and fruit market. According to bye-law No. (Ka) thereof no other place except such as is decided upon by the Nagar Palika under a special resolution shall be used for wholesale dealings in fruit and vegetables. Bye-law No. 1 (kha) makes similar provision in respect of retail dealings in these Articles, Bye-law No. 1 (ga) provides that subsequent to these bye-laws coming into force, nobody shall hold vegetable market on his own land anywhere within the municipal area. The Board shall have the right to realise the dues either by granting theka by auction or through its employees directly. The Board may at its option grant. Theka for holding vegetable market for one year or permanent basis for five years (bye-law v. No. 1-Gha), According to bye-law No. a person desirous to deal in fruit and vegetables in retail shall apply for licence to the Executive Officer. This shall be accompanied with the security of Rs. 100 (bye-law No. 3) and the licence fee payable shall be as provided in bye-law No. 8. 3. This shall be accompanied with the security of Rs. 100 (bye-law No. 3) and the licence fee payable shall be as provided in bye-law No. 8. 3. In both these sets of bye-laws provision is also made to the effect that their breach shall be punishable with fine up to Rs. 1,000 and in the case of recurring breach the fine may extend up to Rs. 25 per day: 4. The draft bye-laws were approved by the Nagar Palika at its meeting held on May 15, 1973 ,whereafter these were published. The petitioner filed objections. These were rejected and the Commissioner, Jhansi Division accorded his approval. The bye-laws were published in the Gazette dated 28th Dec., 1974. A copy of the relevant bye-laws is annexed as Annexure 1 to these petitions. 5. Baij Nath, the petitioner, is a resident of Karvi, district Banda and holds plots Nos. 852/1 and 618 at Chitrakut Dham on permanent lease. For nearly 27 years preceding these petitions he has held cattle market in plot No. 852/1 and the vegetables and fruit market in plot No. 618. Traders from different places come to these market to sell the respective articles. According to the petitioner, the impugned bye-laws impose complete prohibition against the exercise of his fundamental right of carrying on business and the Nagar Palika has arrogated unrestricted and untrammelled powers to itself. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution seeking the relief of certiorari for these bye-laws to be quashed and mandamus restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioner in the exercise of his rights. The petitions are being disposed of together since they give rise to common issues of facts and law. 6. Sri S.M. Dayal, learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that the impugned bye-laws are ultra vires the powers of the Nagar Palika under Section 241 (1) read with S.298 (2) F (a) of the U.P. Municipalities Act. 1916. The Nagar Palika has, it is contended, created monopoly in itself to which it is not entitled and further appropriate provision for grant of licence is non existent. In reply it was argued that the bye-laws only require the petitioner to obtain licence from the Nagar Palika under Section 241 for holding the cattle market. 1916. The Nagar Palika has, it is contended, created monopoly in itself to which it is not entitled and further appropriate provision for grant of licence is non existent. In reply it was argued that the bye-laws only require the petitioner to obtain licence from the Nagar Palika under Section 241 for holding the cattle market. The Nagar Palika is within its rights, it is submitted to hold its own cattle market or auction the cattle market held by it. The petitioner is not restrained from holding the cattle market on his plot except for the fact that he has to obtain the licence. No counter-affidavit has been filed, however, in writ Petition No. 6562 of 1975 that concerns the bye-laws governing the vegetables and fruit market. 7. The Nagar Palika, Chitrakut Dham Karvi is the creation of a statute namely, the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916. There is no dispute that as a Municipal Corporation it is possessed of such powers only as the State Legislature by law confers. S.241 (1) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 makes provision for licensing of markets and shops for sale of certain articles. It says: - "The right of any person to use any place, within the limits of a municipality. other than a municipal market, as a market or shop for the sale of animals, meat or fish intended for human food, or as a market for the sale of fruit or vegetables, shall be subject to bye-laws (if any) made under heading F of S.298." 8. In terms of S.298 (2) F (a) the Nagar Palika may make bye-laws "prohibiting subject to the provisions of S.241, the use of any place as a slaughter-house, or as a market or shop for the sale of animals intended for human food or of meat or of fish. or as a market for the sale of fruit or vegetables. in default of a licence granted by the Board or otherwise than in accordance with the condition of a licence so granted." 9. Section 241 (1) and S.298 (2) F (a) are correlated. Both have to be read together. One cannot be isolated from the other, S.241 (1) places restraint against the exercise of the right of any person to use any place for certain specified purposes. Section 241 (1) and S.298 (2) F (a) are correlated. Both have to be read together. One cannot be isolated from the other, S.241 (1) places restraint against the exercise of the right of any person to use any place for certain specified purposes. These purposes include use of any place as a market for the sale of animals or as a market for the sale of fruit or vegetables. The restraint imposed is such as may be put in under the bye-laws made under heading F of S.298. The bye-laws framed under Section 298 (2) F (a) may no doubt prohibit inter alia, the use of any place as a market for the sale of animals or a market for the sale of fruit or vegetables, but only to a limited extent. This limit is set out in cl.(a) itself. The restraint may be against the use of any place for these purposes without a licence being taken out or in contravention of the terms of the licence where a licence has been granted. In other words the restraint contemplated is only that of licensing, it cannot be absolute nor can the Municipal Board, create monopoly in itself to use any place within the municipal area for these purposes. The power conferred is therefore regulatory in its character: there is prohibition implicit to the extent the exercise of such rights can be regulated under the bye-laws. 10. Viewed in the light of the above. it will be noticed that the bye-laws impugned in Writ Petition No. 6562 of 1975 concerning the holding of market for the sale of fruit and vegetables do not at all provide for taking out of licence by any one to hold such market. Bye-law No. 1 (Ga) lays down in plain terms that when these bye-laws are in force, none shall be eligible to hold such market at any place within the Municipal area. This prohibition is unqualified and absolute. It is not made subject to a licence being obtained. The licence provided for in bye-law No. (2) is only in respect of those intending to deal in fruit or vegetables in retail. This does not pertain to the holding of any market for sale of these articles in wholesale. This prohibition is unqualified and absolute. It is not made subject to a licence being obtained. The licence provided for in bye-law No. (2) is only in respect of those intending to deal in fruit or vegetables in retail. This does not pertain to the holding of any market for sale of these articles in wholesale. There is no denying that the Nagar Palika could earmark the place for such market being held by itself or by Thekadars admitted on auction or otherwise. The distinction between regulation and restriction or prohibition is well recognised. Restriction promotes the freedom or the facility which is required to be regulated in the interest of all concerned. whereas prohibition restricts or shuts off or denies it to those to whom it is applied (see State of U.P. v. Hindustan Aluminium Corporation, (1979-3 SCC 229) : ( AIR 1979 SC 1459 ). It is true that, if the situation necessitates. regulation may reach the limit of prohibition, as held in Fatehchand Himatalal v. State of Maharashtra, (1977-2 SCC 670) : ( AIR 1977 SC 1825 ) but in the instant case the statutory provision under which the Nagar Palika derives its authority does not extend to imposition of a blanket ban against a citizen holding such a market on his private land nor does the respondent show that necessity arose for making total prohibition. The Palika might as well regulate and restrain any one from holding such a market on his own land where it would be. say, unhygienic or where it may impede the smooth flow of traffic etc., considerations of public health safety or convenience may well restrict user of ones own land too for these purposes but in the instant case, the sting lies in the complete absence of any provision enabling licence being taken out even subject to such conditions as can be lawfully imposed. For these reasons the bye-laws are not sustainable in law. 11. In relation to the other set of bye-laws concerning the holding of cattle market the position is not dissimilar. Under bye-laws Nos. 5 and 7. the Nagar Palika has reserved to itself in absolute terms the power to hold a cattle market on land belonging to it or taken on lease through its employees directly or upon theka created from time to time. Under bye-laws Nos. 5 and 7. the Nagar Palika has reserved to itself in absolute terms the power to hold a cattle market on land belonging to it or taken on lease through its employees directly or upon theka created from time to time. Bye-law No. 6 is inserted with the clear intent to make the monopoly in favour of the Palika complete. Provision for licence to horn cattle market on ones own land is conspicuous by its absence in these bye-laws. The bye-laws do not prescribe the criterion for eligibility to licence or the procedure to obtain it, in Rashid Ahmad v. Municipal Board. Kairana ( AIR 1950 SC 163 1. the relevant bye-laws provided (at p:164): "No person shall establish any new market or place for wholesale transaction without obtaining the previous permission of the Board and no person shall set or expose for sale any vegetable: fruit etc, at any place other than that fixed by the Board for the purpose." 12. It was held that Art.19 (1) of the Constitution guarantees to a citizen the right to carry on trade or business subject to such reasonable restrictions as are mentioned in cl. (6) of that Article. Referring to the above-mentioned bye-law it was pointed that "the position, however, under bye-law 2 is that while it provided that no person shall establish a market for wholesale transactions in vegetables except with the permission of the Board there is no bye-law authorising the respondent Board to issue the licence. The net result is that the prohibition of this bye-law in the absence of any provision for issuing licence becomes absolute". (Emphasis is ours). 13. Under Art.19(1) (g) of the Constitution the citizen has the right to carry on any occupation, trade or business. To hold cattle market or a market dealing with fruit and vegetables for pecuniary benefit is carrying on trade or business. A right to hold a fair on ones own land has been regarded as fundamental right. The holding of a cattle market is an occupation or business within the meaning of Art.19 (1) (g). Therefore a citizen has also a fundamental right to engage in an occupation, on his land provided that it does not infringe any law imposing "reasonable restriction" on that right in the interest of the general public. (See. Seervai; Constitution Law of India. Vol. I (1975) page 405). Therefore a citizen has also a fundamental right to engage in an occupation, on his land provided that it does not infringe any law imposing "reasonable restriction" on that right in the interest of the general public. (See. Seervai; Constitution Law of India. Vol. I (1975) page 405). Mela in this country is not considered a franchise and it is a legal incidence of ownership of the property. In Hem Chandra Roy Chowdhury v Krishna Chandra Saha Sardar ((1920) ILR 47 Cal 1079) : (AIR 1920 Cal 255) the right to hold a market was treated as incidence to the ownership of land. This authority has been followed in Ganesh Singh v. Shitla Bux Singh (AIR 1931 Oudh 110). The same view has been taken in Shivraj Singh v. State of U.P. (1976 Rev Dec 1091 by a Division Bench of this Court. In Ganpati Singhji v. State of Ajmer (AIR 1955 SC 1881 it was observed (at p. 189): "The holding of an annual fair is an occupation or business within the meaning of Art.19 (1) (g). Therefore, the appellant also has a fundamental right to engage in that occupation on his land provided it does not infringe any law imposing "reasonable restrictions on that right in the interests of the general public"." 14. Where provision for licence is made, the applicant would be entitled to have his application considered in accordance with the terms of the statute and to press for its grant on the basis of the criteria set forth therein. In Mohd. Yasin v. T.A. Jalalabad. ( AIR 1952 SC 115 ), also the bye-laws did not provide for issue of licence to the vegetable and fruit merchants. Although in form there was no prohibition against carrying m any wholesale business by anybody, in effect and in substance the bye-laws brought about a total stoppage of the wholesale dealers business in commercial sense. The Supreme Court struck down the provisions on ground of infringement of Art.19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. 15. In Tahir Hussain v. District Board Muzaffarnagar ( AIR 1954 SC 630 ), the petitioner held a market (painth) on his land for sale of cattle and charged commission on sales. Bye-law No. 2 was framed to provide that no person shall establish or maintain or run any cattle market in the district within the jurisdiction of the Board. 15. In Tahir Hussain v. District Board Muzaffarnagar ( AIR 1954 SC 630 ), the petitioner held a market (painth) on his land for sale of cattle and charged commission on sales. Bye-law No. 2 was framed to provide that no person shall establish or maintain or run any cattle market in the district within the jurisdiction of the Board. In declaring this bye-law void, the Supreme Court held (at p. 631): "These provisions show that the power of the Board to make bye-laws is exercised for the purpose of promoting or maintaining the health, safety and convenience of the inhabitants of the area within its jurisdiction and that this power includes the power to regulate markets as mentioned in sub-section (2) (1). The bye-law passed by the District Board is not one passed for regulating the market but for prohibiting the petitioner from holding it. Such a bye-law in face of the provisions of S.174 is obviously beyond jurisdiction. The bye-law as well as the order under it interferes with the fundamental right of the petitioner under Art.19 (1) (g) and prevents him from carrying on the business of holding the market." 16. The earlier decision is Rashid Ahmad v. Municipal Board, Kairana ( AIR 1950 SC 163 ) (supra) was cited with approval. In Bishambhar Nath Dwivedi v. S.D.M. (1972 All LJ 936) similar bye-laws had been framed by the Town Area Committee, u/s.30 (a) (2) of the U.P. Town Areas Act read with S.298 of the U. P. Municipalities Act imposing total restraint upon the holding of any market or fair for the sale of cattle. One of the Judges (K.N. Singh, J.) held that 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. The monopoly created by the Town Area Committee in its own favour is not authorised under the provisions of the Act, and further as the impugned bye-laws were not directed to regulate any market but they prohibited holding of any cattle market by any other person or institution. The bye-laws were consequently declared unconstitutional and illegal. 17. The monopoly created by the Town Area Committee in its own favour is not authorised under the provisions of the Act, and further as the impugned bye-laws were not directed to regulate any market but they prohibited holding of any cattle market by any other person or institution. The bye-laws were consequently declared unconstitutional and illegal. 17. In the absence of statutory power existing in the Nagar Palika to create monopoly in its favour the second part of cl.(6) to Art.19 is of no avail to the respondent. No doubt for purposes of the second part the words "reasonable restrictions" are not imported (See : New Bihar Biri Leaves Co. v. State of Bihar ( AIR 1981 SC 679 ). Akadasi Padhan v. State of Orissa ( AIR 1963 SC 1047 )) but whereas in this case, the first part of cl.(6) applies, the requirement of "reasonable restrictions" is not dispensed with. 18. It is well settled that there is no abstract standard to determine a restriction reasonable within the meaning of clause (6) to Art.19. What is required is that the limitation imposed on a person in the enjoyment of his right should not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature beyond what is required in the interest of the public. The expression "reasonable" implies intelligent care and deliberation i.e. choice of a course which reason dictates. The restriction should strike the proper balance between the freedom guaranteed and the social control provided by the Constitution. It has, therefore, to be shown that the restriction imposed has reasonable relation to the authorised purpose. (See: Laxmi Khardsari v. State of U.P. (AIR 1981 SC 8731: Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of U.P. (AIR 1982 SC 331: Dr. Y.P. Singh v. State of U.P. ( AIR 1982 All 439 )). As observed by the Supreme Court in the State of Maharashtra v. H.N. Rao ( AIR 1970 SC 1157 ) even a law designed to abate a grave nuisance and for protection of public health, must not impose arbitrary or excessive restrictions upon the right of a citizen (See: also Suraj Pal v. Zila Parishad, Banda (1978 All. W.C. 28): (AIR 1978 NOC 93). 19. It is not disputed before us that for the sake of public health, safety and convenience the Nagar Palika can regulate the cattle market and the market for selling fruit and vegetables. W.C. 28): (AIR 1978 NOC 93). 19. It is not disputed before us that for the sake of public health, safety and convenience the Nagar Palika can regulate the cattle market and the market for selling fruit and vegetables. The complete absence of a provision for licence to those engaged in holding these markets on their own land cannot, however, lie held to have reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Subject to the local authority prescribing appropriate conditions including with respect to the choice of the site, it does not appear necessary to impose a total ban against private individuals holding these markets on their own land. The restraint imposed in the instant case is in our opinion, unreasonable and excessive. 20. In view of the foregoing discussion we are of the opinion that bye-law No. 6 of the impugned bye-laws in Writ Petition No. 3800 of 1975 and bye-law No. 1 (ga) of the bye-laws impugned in the other Writ Petition No. 6562 of 1975 are ultra vires the powers of the Nagar Palika respondent No. 1. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed with costs and these provisions of the said bye-laws are quashed. The Nagar Palika Respondent No. 1 directed not to prohibit the petitioner from holding cattle market and market in vegetables and fruits on his plots of land within the limits of the Nagar Palika, Chitrakut Dham Karvi until proper and valid bye-laws are framed and thereafter except in accordance with a licence to be obtained by the petitioner under the bye-laws to be so framed. Petitioner is entitled to his costs. Petition allowed.