LAWS(ALL)-1991-9-39

MAULANA KHALI AHMAD Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MORADABAD

Decided On September 23, 1991
Maulana Khali Ahmad Appellant
V/S
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MORADABAD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner made an application before the Sub Divisional Officer, Moradabad for permission to hold a cattle market over plot No. 213 of village Sidrahu Nazarpur, Tahsil Thakurwara, P.S. Bhojpur district Moradabad. It appears that some others including Gaon Sabha had also made similar applications for permission to hold cattle market over their respective land situate within the Zila Parishad, Moradabad. All these applications have been rejected by the District Magistrate on the report of the Additional District Magistrate by an order dated 16 -11 -1987.

(2.) ON 6 -4 -1988 this Court had directed the petitioner to take steps for service on the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 in addition to the usual mode of service. The learned Standing Counsel was also granted time to file counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2. The record indicates that the third and fourth respondents were duly served with the notice of the petition. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have filed no counter affidavit neither have respondents Nos. 3 and 4.

(3.) A bare reading of the report of the Additional District Magistrate which has been approved by the District Magistrate in his capacity as an Administrator of the Zila Parishad would show that the petitioners' application has not been considered at all. There are no comments whatever with regard to the pleas raised by the petitioner that he may be allowed to hold cattle market on his plot No. 213. In the absence of any such comments, it is not possible to speculate on the considerations which weighed with the Additional District Magistrate and the District Magistrate in the rejection of the petitioner's application. On the contrary the impugned order indicates that it was passed wholly on the basis of some discussions that had taken place between the Additional District Magistrate and the District Magistrate on the subject. What was discussed has neither been disclosed nor is otherwise clear.