DISTRICT BOARD, MUZAFFARNAGAR Vs. HANSRAJ GUPTA AND CO.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the District Board of Muzaffarnagar (now described as the Antarim Zila Parishad, Muzaffarnagar), against an order of a learned single Judge of this Court granting a petition for issue of writs, directions or orders under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) The appellant, under bye laws framed in exercise of the powers under Sec. 174(1) of the District Board Act, 1922, known as the Muzaffarnagar Kolhus and Karhais (pans) bye laws, insisted that the respondent should obtain a licence under those bye laws and gave a notice to the respondent that, if no licence was taken, the respondent would be prosecuted for the breach of the bye laws. The learned single Judge directed the appellant not to insist on the respondent calling out the licence and not to enforce the notice or to proceed with the prosecution of the respondent. This order was made by the learned single Judge on the view held by him that the respondent who had been letting out the kolhus and karhais to person using them in the rural area within the jurisdiction of the appellant, could not be held to be an 'owner' with regard to those kolhus and karhais within the definition of that word as given in the bye laws, so that there was no obligation on the respondent to take out a licence, nor had there been any breach by the respondent of any of the bye-laws. In this appeal, the contention raised on behalf of the appellant District Board is that the respondent was an 'owner' within the definition of that word as contained in the bye laws so that the learned single Judge was not right in directing the appellant to refrain from asking the respondent to take a licence or to refrain from enforcing the notice or from proceeding with the prosecution of the respondent.

(3.) Under the bye laws in question the word 'owner' has been defined as follows:-