OM PRAKASH GUPTA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE HARDOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 29-5-1985 contained in Annexure 8 whereby the District Magistrate, Hardoi permitted opposite parties nos. 3 to 5 to hold cattle market on their Bhumidhari plot no. 295 situate in village Kakrari, Tahsil Sandila District Hardoi every year during the period from 1st to 15th in the month of Asarh. Opposite parties 3 to 5 were further permitted to obtain and use receipt book for recording transactions of sale and purchase of the cattle at the cattle market in Form 54 prescribed under the Police Regulations. The permission was granted subject to the observance of conditions provided in Paragraph 183 of the Police Regulations.

(2.) PETITIONER's father had obtained permission from the District Magistrate, Hardoi by order dated 4-5-1981, contained in Annexure 1, for holding cattle market on 11 Bhumidhari plots of his own for the period Aghan Sadi 10 to Poos Badi 9 during winter and for the period Jeth Sudi 10 to Asarh Badi 9 every year. He was likewise permitted to get issued and use receipt book in Form 54 under the Police Regulations. It appears that after the death of his father, the petitioner made an application dated 8-1-1985 before the District Magistrate, Hardoi seeking change of the period during summer and through order dated 14-2-1985 contained in Annexure 2, the petitioner was permitted to hold cattle market for the period from 1st to 15th of Asarh in the Krishna Paksh. The petitioner's case is that opposite parties nos. 3 to 5 had obtained the impugned order dated 29-5-1985 contained in Annexure 8 by exercising political pressure on the District Magistrate and under the law no permission could be granted by the District Magistrate for holding cattle market on an area situate at a distance upto 5 Kilometers from the plots on which similar permission had earlier been granted. According to the petitioner the plot over which permission has been granted to opposite parties to hold cattle market on the same date for which the permission had been granted in favour of the petitioner lies at a distance shorter than 5 Kilometers. It is pleaded that opposite parties nos. 3 to 5 had never before been holding cattle market on plot no. 295 specified in the impugned order with the permission of the District Magistrate nor the receipts recording transaction of sale and purchase of cattle were issued in the Form No. 54 as prescribed in the Police Regulations.

(3.) THE factual position being clear, the only point arising for consideration is whether the petitioner's claim of his having obtained the permission for holding the Mela on his Bhumidhari plots earlier in the year 1985 will confer on him any preferential legal right against opposite parties 3 to 5. In support of bis contention learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on paragraph 183 of the Police Regulations which also provides for issue of receipt books in Police Form no. 54 for registering the sale of cattle at the cattle markets. A perusal of opening lines of paragraph 183 would clearly indicate that the provision contained in this paragraph deals with the voluntary registration of sales of cattle at cattle markets outside Municipal and Cantonment limits at police station and in outlying tracts distant from a police station. Nowhere it is laid down in this paragraph that it is essential for a Bhumidhar who holds a cattle fair at his Bhumidhari land to obtain receipt book in Police Form No. 54. Accordingly, legally speaking it would be open to such a Bhumidhar to issue receipts about the sale and purchase of cattle otherwise than the receipts in Police Form No. 54 though in practice a person holding a cattle fair would prefer to secure the receipt book in Police Form No. 54 in order to provide sanctity and dependable proof in relation to the transactions of sale and purchase of a cattle.