Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 44129 of 2010 Petitioner :- Maharishi Durwasha Jan Evam Pashu Mela Auraiya And Ors. Respondent :- Zila Panchayat Auraiya And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Gautam Chaudhary,Anil Bhushan Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,A.K.Srivastava,Anshu Chaudhary,Nisaruddin Hon'ble Sheo Kumar Singh,J.
Hon’ble Devendra Kumar Arora,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anshu Chaudhary, learned
advocate for Zila Panchayat and Sri Nisar Uddin, learned advocate who
appeared for the private respondent.
Challenge in this petition is the order dated 2.6.2010 passed by Zila
Panchayat by which application for grant of permission to hold cattle market
on the land in dispute for the year 2010-2011 has been rejected.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that order of Zila
Panchayat is non speaking and there is total non application of mind to the
facts qua petitioner and the private respondent.
Submission is that the only reason which has been given in the order
impugned here is that because license in favour of private respondent has
been renewed, application of the petitioner cannot be accepted .
Submission is that firstly, renewal as is said to have been done by Zila
Panchayat is totally illegal and unjustified for the simple reason that renewal
can be of continuing fact.It is the permission to hold cattle market is given
every year only for limited days ( 20 days) and thus , it can be a case of fresh
grant every year on satisfaction of various details and comparative merits of
the applicants applying for the permission.
Submission is that so far as petitioner is concerned, his claim may be accepted
to be much better to that of private respondent as so far land is concerned,
petitioner has major share and the respondent has very small share and
otherwise also, financial capacity may weigh in petitioner’s favour.
Submission is that this may be for consideration by the competent authority
and he is not asking this Court to examine the merits between the petitioner
and the respondent to whom license has been given.
Sri Chaudhary and Sri Nisar Uddin, learned counsel for the respondents
submit that in the bye laws, there is mention for renewal and as for the
previous year, petitioner did not apply, if license has been renewed in favour
of private respondent, then no exception can be taken to it.
At the very outset, this Court is to observe that non applying and non grant of
license/permission of previous year, may not be the ground for non
acceptance of the claim of the petitioner for this year. If permission is to be
granted every year, then non moving application of previous year may not be
a ground for non consideration of the claim of petitioner for the next year.
Petitioner claims to have better claim than the private respondent for various
reasons about which, we are not to express any opinion and lay down any
criteria/guideline as that can be matter of concern/discretion of the Zila
Panchayat but at the same time, Zila Panchayat will have to act in a
reasonable manner while granting/rejecting claim of either of the claimant.
A bare perusal of the order of Zila Panchayat makes it clear that absolutely no
reason has been given for rejecting the petitioner’s claim and thus the manner
in which, petitioner’s claim has been rejected, is not acceptable to this Court
as the matter/claim has to be considered objectively and thus documents i.e.
Khatauni extract and other things as is required to be presented as provided in
the bye-laws is to be taken into account by the Zila Panchayat while
considering the claim.
Grant of license to the private respondent on the ground so noticed in the
impugned order is to be quashed.
Accordingly, this petition succeeds and is allowed.
The impugned order dated 2.6.2010 is quashed. Zila Panchayat is directed to
re-consider the matter on merits in respect to the claim of petitioner and
private respondent for grant of permission for holding cattle market for the
current year expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from the
date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.
However, if it is so required, both parties may be given opportunity so as to
place relevant documents before the concerned authority so that on the facts,
there may not be any mistake.
Order Date :- 12.8.2010
Shahid