UP Municipalities Act | Nagar Panchayat Has Authority To License Cattle Markets Even On Private Land: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that a Nagar Panchayat has the authority to licence and regulate cattle markets within its local limits under the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916, while dismissing a challenge to the license granted for holding a cattle market.

A bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla was hearing a petition challenging orders dated December 2025 and March 2026, which authorized respondent no. 7 to hold a cattle market at a place in Mahavan town, Mathura district on Wednesdays and Saturdays.

The petitioner (Imran) argued that such power did not vest in the Nagar Panchayat and relied upon Section 298 of the UP Municipalities Act and List I appended to it.

The main issue before the Court was whether the Nagar Panchayat had the statutory authority to licence the setting up of a cattle market.

The Court referred to Article F of List I appended to the Act of 1916 relating to bye-laws for a municipality, titled "MARKETS, SLAUGHTER-HOUSES, SALE OF FOOD, etc".

The provision contemplates municipal bye-laws "prohibiting, subject to any provision of section 241, 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..." in default of a licence granted by the Municipality or otherwise except in accordance with the conditions of such licence.

Interpreting the provision, the High Court held that the statutory language makes it clear that a Nagar Panchayat, included within the meaning of a Municipality for this purpose, has regulatory powers over such markets. The Court observed thus:

"A reading of the said Article F in List I clearly shows that the very fact that a Municipality, which would also mean a Nagar Panchayat, has the power of 'prohibiting, subject to any provisions of section 241, use of any place as a slaughter-house or as a market or shop for sale of animals intended for human food or of meat or of fish, or as a market for the sale of fruit or vegetables,....' shows that the Nagar Panchayat has authority to license the setting up of a market to sell animals".

The Court further noted that the bye-laws framed under Section 298 of the UP Municipalities Act speak of the regulatory authority of the Nagar Panchayat.

It observed that even if the particular provision in List I were not present, the absence of such a provision would not necessarily prevent the Nagar Panchayat from permitting a market to be established on its own land under a contract for raising revenue.

The case also involved the fact that respondent no. 7 had established the cattle market on his own land. The Court recorded:

"Here is a case where respondent no. 7 has set up a cattle market on his own land, and for that purpose, has taken out a license from the Nagar Panchayat, because they have regulatory powers".

The High Court explained that, if the Nagar Panchayat did not possess such regulatory powers, respondent no. 7 could have set up the cattle market without obtaining a licence. However, the statutory framework empowered the Nagar Panchayat to regulate such markets within its local limits.

The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that a provision had to be "designed to the last letter" specifically authorising the licensing of a cattle market. It remarked thus:

"It is not the law that there has to be a specific provision designed to the last letter to authorise the licensing of a cattle market, the way learned Counsel for the petitioner wants us to understand".

Apart from this, the Bench also found no locus standi in the petitioner to challenge the orders granting the licence in favour of respondent no. 7. The Court observed:

"Apart from these things, we really do not find any locus standi in the petitioner to question the orders impugned, granting a license in favour of respondent no. 7 to hold a cattle market".

The Court accordingly dismissed the writ petition, with no order as to costs. The Court clarified that it had not examined the vires of any provision of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 in the proceedings.