Nagar Panchayat Has Power to Licence Cattle Markets Under UP Municipalities Act, Rules Allahabad HC
A Division Bench dismissed a writ petition challenging cattle market licences, holding that the Nagar Panchayat's regulatory authority under the UP Municipalities Act includes the power to licence animal markets.
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in a Division Bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla, dismissed a writ petition filed by a petitioner named Imran, who had challenged two orders — dated 02.12.2025 and 30.03.2026 — authorising Respondent No. 7 to hold a cattle market on his own land at Gata No. 366, on every Wednesday and Saturday. The Bench held that Article F of List I appended to the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 plainly confers on a Nagar Panchayat the power to regulate and licence markets for the sale of animals. It also found the petitioner to be a “busy body” with no locus standi to question the licences granted in favour of Respondent No. 7.
The Challenge Before the Court
The petitioner sought to set aside two administrative orders. The first, dated 02.12.2025, authorised Respondent No. 7 to hold a cattle market, and the second, dated 30.03.2026, was issued in favour of Respondent No. 5 to put up the cattle market at Gata No. 366 on specified weekly days.
The petitioner's case rested on the argument that a Nagar Panchayat does not possess the legal power to grant a licence for the holding of a cattle market. Counsel for the petitioner pointed the court to Section 298 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916, which empowers municipalities to frame bye-laws, and to List I appended to that Act. The specific contention was that Article F of List I, which governs markets, slaughter-houses, and the sale of food, does not extend so far as to permit the Nagar Panchayat to licence a market for the sale of cattle on private land.
What Article F of List I Provides
Article F of List I under the Act of 1916 deals with markets, slaughter-houses, and the sale of food and animals. It empowers a municipality to prohibit, subject to Section 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 fish, or as a market for fruit or vegetables, unless a licence is granted by the municipality or the activity is carried on in accordance with the conditions of such a licence.
The bye-laws framed under Section 298 of the Act of 1916 give expression to this regulatory authority. The Bench read Article F as confirming, rather than restricting, the Nagar Panchayat's power to licence markets for the sale of animals.
How the Bench Reasoned
The Division Bench rejected the narrow reading urged by the petitioner. The court held that Article F, on a plain reading, shows that a municipality — which includes a Nagar Panchayat — has the authority to licence the setting up of a market to sell animals. The power to prohibit without a licence necessarily presupposes the power to grant one.
The Bench went further and addressed what the position would be even if Article F were absent altogether. It reasoned that even without Article F in List I, the Nagar Panchayat would not be prohibited from permitting the setting up of a market on its own land by way of contract, in order to raise revenue. The statutory provision, in that sense, adds a regulatory dimension rather than creating the only possible source of authority.
On the specific facts, the court observed that Respondent No. 7 had set up the cattle market on his own private land and had obtained a licence from the Nagar Panchayat precisely because the Nagar Panchayat holds regulatory powers over such activity within its local limits. The Bench noted that had the Nagar Panchayat no such powers, Respondent No. 7 could have operated the market without any licence at all.
The court articulated the position in broad terms: it is not the law that a specific provision must be crafted to the last letter to authorise the licensing of a cattle market. The Nagar Panchayat's regulatory authority, as it exists under the Act of 1916, is sufficient both when a statutory provision enables the regulation and when such a provision is absent.
Locus Standi of the Petitioner
Independently of the statutory analysis, the Bench found that the petitioner lacked locus standi to challenge the impugned orders. The court described the petitioner as a “busy body,” finding no basis on which he could legally question the grant of a licence in favour of Respondent No. 7 to hold a cattle market. This finding on locus standi was recorded as a separate and self-sufficient ground for dismissing the petition.
Clarification on Vires
The Bench expressly clarified that the question of the constitutional or legal validity of any provision of the Act of 1916 was not examined in the petition. The court's conclusions are therefore confined to the interpretation and application of the existing statutory framework and do not touch on any challenge to the vires of the Act.
Order
The writ petition was dismissed. No order as to costs was made.