Dismissed

Bhagwandas Singhal and 7 Others v. State of U P and 6 Others

Allahabad HC25 Oct 2018WRIC/35474/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash an order rejecting an application for a license to hold a weekly cattle fair on private land. The Court found no illegality in the Municipal Commissioner's decision to deny the license due to traffic and hygiene concerns.

What did the court decide?

None. The writ petition was dismissed with no injunction or cost awarded to petitioners.

Bhagwandas Singhal and 7 Others Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 35474 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Bhagwandas Singhal And 7 Others Respondent :- State Of U P And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Surendra Kumar Chaubey,Sushil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vashishtha Tiwari

¶4

Hon'ble Govind Mathur,Acting Chief Justice Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Vashishtha Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no.7 and learned standing counsel for the State.

¶6

Present writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:

¶7

i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 3.10.2018 passed by the respondent no. 7. (Annexure No. 16 to the writ petition)

¶8

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to grant the license in favour of the petitioners for running the weekly cattle fair on its private land within stipulated period as fixed by this Court.

¶9

iii. Issue any other writ, order or direction in the like nature which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶10

iv. Award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioners.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are running the cattle market on their private land on every Saturday for the last many years. The SSP Mathura vide order dated 27.5.2018 has directed to stop holding of said cattle market. Learned counsel submits that the police authorities have entrusted the rights and duties to protect the animal for cruelty and for which they are set-free to do anything but at no point of time petitioners have done anything against any person during course of running of weekly cattle market, hence, the allegations levelled in the FIR cannot be said to be just and proper in the eyes of law. The SSP was not justified in passing the order dated 27.5.2018 stopping the petitioners from holding the cattle market on their private land.

¶12

Earlier petitioners have approached this Court and a coordinate Bench of this Court passed an order with the direction to the District Magistrate, Mathura to pass an appropriate order and it is also clarified that respondents should take appropriate action against the petitioners, if they are not having any license to hold the cattle fair on the land in dispute. The District Magistrate,

¶13

Mathura on 06.09.2018 after taking into account the facts and the orders, has passed an order categorically indicating that the order of SSP Mathura was illegal and secondly has further indicated that keeping in view the provisions of U.P. Municipal Corporation Act 1959, the Municipal Commissioner of Mathura is under an obligation to consider the grant of license keeping in view the sections referred to in the order itself. The Municipal Commissioner of Mathura Vrindaban had, therefore, to apply his mind and pass an order with regard to grant of licence in accordance with the directions of the District Magistrate. The Municipal Commissioner of Mathura Vrindaban vide order dated 3.10.2018 has rejected the application for grant of license giving detailed reasons therein with a finding that holding of cattle fair on any land or any market or butchering the animals cannot be granted to anybody and for the said purpose the notified areas may be allotted which can be distant from the city. It is further stated that such type of cattle market and other activities in the name of cattle fair are hindrance in the city traffic and unhygienic also. As per Section 422 of Municipal Corporation Act, 1959, the Municipal Commissioner has a right for giving the license to hold such type of cattle fair.

¶14

Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners by contending that the Municipal Commissioner after considering overall aspect of the matter has passed a detailed order and valid reasons have also been assigned for not granting the license in favour of the petitioners to hold the cattle fair on the said land. It is also contended that sucy type of cattle market in the locality of city is a nuisance and unhygienic for the city life.

¶15

We have considered the arguments, so advanced, and perused the order impugned passed by the Municipal Commissioner, Mathura Vrindaban and other relevant records and we do not find any just reason to interfere in the same. We also do not find any illegality in the order impugned passed by the Municipal Commissioner.

¶16

Writ petition is devoid of merit and same is dismissed, accordingly.

¶17

Order Date :- 25.10.2018 Shekhar/Asha

¶18

(Chandra Dhari Singh,J.) (Govind Mathur, A.C.J.)

Bhagwandas Singhal and 7 Others v. State of U P and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagwandas Singhal and 7 Others v. State of U P and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kunti Devi and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramdhani Maurya Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nathuram Rajpoot and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Rajesh Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Amit Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

M/S Narayan Stone Works Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others