ORDER
Aftab Alam, J.
1. The petitioner is a professional circus group. It moves from place to place, putting up circus shows under the name and style of Asian Circus. It claims to be affiliated to the Indian Circus Federation as one of the bona fide. Indian Circus units.
2. The petitioner Asian Circus is at present camping at Mairwa under Mairwa police station in the district and sub-division of Siwan. It came there on 30-1-2001, intending to put up its shows there. It is, however, unable to put up its shows at Mairwa for want of written permission from the Dist. Magistrate, Siwan. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner, and not denied by the State, that the petitioner Asian Circus has entered into an agreement with a certain Gopal Jee Narain Shahi for setting up camp, circus enclosure, cycle stand etc. on plot No. 212 being the Raiyati land of the aforesaid Gopal Jee Narain Shahi and the petitioner does not intend to use any public land for holding its shows.
3. It is also not in dispute that earlier by order, dated 12-12-2000 the Sub-Divisional Officer, Siwan had given the petitioner permission to put up circus shows for the period from 15-12-2000 to 31-1-2001 on the Raiyati land of Gopal Jee Narain Shahi. At that time, however, the petitioner was unable to put up the shows as the land being rain soaked was quite soft and was not suitable for setting up the necessary infra structure for the circus shows. The petitioner-circus had, therefore, gone over to Dewaria in U.P. and had put up its circus shows there. It came back to Mairwa on 30-1-2001 and requested for extension of the period allowed by letter, dated 12-12-2000. This time, however, the administration refused to give permission for putting up circus shows at Miarwa with the result that the circus group with all its men, animals and equipments finds itself stranded at Mairwa. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that it has already incurred and continues to incur every day huge expenses in maintaining its equipments, animals and men and on account of the financial losses suffered, it is not even in a position to move away from Mairwa, transporting its animals and equipments etc.
4. In these circumstances the petitioner came to this Court in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking appropriate directions to the authorities in the district administration and the district police to allow it to put up circus shows at Mairwa and not to cause any obstruction in the way of the petitioner in putting up its shows.
5. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that it will not be possible to grant permission to the petitioner to put up circus shows at Mairwa. The main reason assigned for the refusal to grant permission is the greatly disturbed law and order situation at Mairwa and places nearby. It is stated (in para 7 of the counter-affidavit) that Jagdishpur, a village close to Mairwa had witnessed gang-wars, resulting in the killing of nine persons on 1-2-2001. It is stated that Jagdishpur earlier came under Mairwa Police Station but subsequently a new Police Station Natan was established and Jagdishpur now came under Natan P.S. It is also slated that the coming Panchayat elections had further disturbed the law and order situation and had caused tension among the members of the Communist Party M.L., the R.J.D. and the B.J.P. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that on request made by the petitioner, the matter was referred to the local police and both the local police and the circle authorities recommended against the grant of permission in view of the grave law and order problems. In the counter-affidavit reference is also made to a number of criminal cases which had arisen in places nearby Mairwa and were registered in the respective police stations. However, it is not said in the counter-affidavit that there was any prohibitory order under Section 144, Cr. P.C. was in force at Mairwa or there was any restriction on peaceful assembling of people there.
6. It is surprising to note that in the counter-affidavit though reasons are given for not giving permission, nothing is stated on the main issue itself i.e., the legal requirement of permission from the district administration for putting up circus shows. The respondents seem to proceed on the assumption that no circus shows can be put up without prior permission from the district adminisration. No Act or any provision of a statute was brought to the notice of the Court on the basis of which it could be held that prior permission from the district administration was legal a necessity for putting up shows by a professional circus group.
7. It does not require much imagination to see that holding shows by professional circus groups for profit and as a means of livelihood would be covered by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Thus on the one hand the petitioner’s right to hold circus shows is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and on the other hand no law or statutory provision is brought to the notice of the Court putting any restriction on the exercise of that right.
8. In the absence of any law the matter of imposing reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the petitioner’s right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution is left in the hands of the district administration, even without any executive instructions providing guidelines to regulate the holding of the circus shows having regard to the local conditions. In the ultimate anyalysis the matter is left in the hands of the District Magistrate and whether or not a professional circus group would be able to exercise one of its fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution would depend upon the subjective response of the District Magistrate. In the same set of facts and circumstances one District Magistrate may see no harm in allowing circus shows to be held while another District Magistrate may not like the shows to be held at all. Such a position is clearly unacceptable to this Court.
9. Coming back to the facts of the case in hand the petitioner is refused permission on the plea that the law and order situation at Mairwa was bad and it was not suitable for holding circus shows. In order to show that the law and order situation was bad a number of cases are cited, none of which can be attributed even indirectly to the petitioner. In other words, the petitioner is denied the exercise of its right guaranteed by the Constitution for no fault on its part but for the wrongdoings of others. If members of different political parties are engaged in quarrelling and if people from different criminal gangs are killing each other the responsibility lies on the district administration and the district police and it is for the administration and the police to control the situation. That cannot be made a ground to penalise the citizens of the country and to completely deny them the exercise of their rights guaranteed by the Constitution, As long as the petitioner’s circus group does not break any law, I am unable to see how it can be totally denied its right of holding circus shows.
10. Mr. Mahesh Prasad, learned G.P. III appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the maintenance of law and order was after all the responsibility of the district administration and the district administration must, therefore, be given a free hand to assess the impact of any event on the law and order situation at a given place. According to him if the circus shows tended to make an adverse impact on the law and order situation, then the district administration would be fully justified in prohibiting the holding of any shows.
11. I am unable to accept the submission, As long as an act is valid, lawful and authorised, it cannot be prohibited on the ground that it is likely to have an adverse effect to the law and order situation. What can be prohibited and prevented from taking place are events and actions which are in themselves unlawful, illegal and unauthorised. If the submission of the State Counsel is accepted, it may lead to highly anamolous consequences. The district administration may one day prohibit persons belonging to a particular religious group, caste or community from taking stroll on a road on the plea that it was likely to have an adverse effect on the law and order situation.
12. It is also to be borne in mind that on the plea of bad law and order situation the district administration did not even consider allowing the exercise of the right to the petitioner in a limited, restricted or controlled way but saw nothing wrong in the complete denial of the exercise of the right.
13. I am unable to uphold the total denial of the petitioner’s fundamental right on the mere subjective response of the district administration on the plea of bad law and order situation at Mairwa.
14. I these facts and circumstances and on the basis of the materials brought on record, I am satisfied that there is no legal requirement for a written permission for holding circus shows as long as the show is not breaking any law, rule or statute. All that is required is the prior information and intimation to the district administration to enable them to take suitable measures for maintaining law and order and other allied and incidental matters. It may, however, be open to the administration to regulate and control the timings of the show, number of persons to be allowed entry in each show and other allied matters of detail in the larger public interest.
15. This writ petition is accordingly allowed with the direction that it will be open to the petitioner to hold its circus shows and it will he allowed to do so as long as it does not contravene or breach any provision of law, statute or rule. The district administration and the police may, however, give necessary directions on matters indicated in the previous paragraph.
16. In the result, this writ petition is allowed but with no order as to costs.