MAHESH CHANDRA PALIWAL Vs. COLLECTOR AND D.M.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the Bhumidhar of a certain piece of land over which he was holding cattle fair for a long time. He was aggrieved for an order dated March 26, 1977 passed by the Station Officer, police station Pitiyali, district Etah whereby the petitioner was required to bear the expenses connected with the deployment of a police force which according to the Station Officer was necessary for maintenance of law and order and for maintenance of peace during the fair. The petitioner immediately filed an objection protesting against this demand. He asserted that he had never requested for deployment of any police force nor is the presence of any police necessary or required by him for holding the cattle fair. Upon this written objection submitted by the petitioner the officer concerned passed an order which is quoted in paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit. It reads: - -

(2.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, we have not the slightest hesitation in holding that the impugned demand is completely misconceived and unauthorised in law. It is not disputed by the respondent that the petitioner himself had not made any request for deployment of police force in the Mela area. Indeed, not only had the petitioner never asked for deployment of police force, but he had promptly on the receipt of the order dated March 26, 1977 issued by the Station Officer mentioned above protest in writing that he did not require the assistance of the police for running the cattle fair. Apart from the fact that in the counter affidavit, no rule has been quoted justifying such a demand, even the learned Standing Counsel in spite of being repeatedly asked by us was wholly unable to cite any rules, statutory or otherwise, which may justify such a demand raised by the police for doing no more than simply maintaining law and order on making provision there for apprehending breach of the peace in any area particularly when the same has not been asked for by any private individual.

(3.) THE upshot of the aforesaid discussion, therefore, is that the impugned demand is clearly unsustainable in law and the same must be quashed. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned demand raised by the respondents is quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to his costs from the respondents.