MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed on behalf of Municipal Committee, Julana, District Jind, through its President.

(2.) It is submitted that when Jind town was a part of the erstwhile State of Patiala and East Punjab States Union, the cattle fairs used to be held there by the Department of Agriculture. This, arrangement continued even after the merger of PEPSU with the State of Punjab till the year 1963, when the State Government took an executive decision to hold cattle fairs, previously held by the Agriculture Department in municipal areas of the non-District Board, would be held by the Panchayat Samitis concerned. This was subject to the condition that the proceeds realised would not be utilised till further orders. The petitioner-Committee objected that the Panchayat Samiti could not hold a cattle fair within the area of its jurisdiction. This objection was repelled on the ground that the petitioner-Committee had not framed any Cattle Fair Bye-laws under Section 188(e)(iv) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. Till such time the petitioner-Committee framed the bye-laws, an arrangement was arrived at between the contesting parties under which the Panchayat Samiti paid some annual rent to the Municipal Committee every year.

(3.) The Committee also framed the bye-laws which were approved by the State Government. After framing these bye-laws, it wrote to the Deputy Commissioner that the Panchayat Samiti, Jind may be restrained from holding cattle fairs, vide its letter dated June 13, 1968, Annexure 'C'. This letter was not replied to inspite of some reminders. Subsequently, through the good offices of the Deputy Commissioner the petitioner charged a sum of Rs. 16,000/- on account of rent and sanitation arrangement for the year 1968. In the subsequent years this rent was enhanced for the year 1969-70 and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was paid to the Committee on 10th October, 1970. It would thus appear that the petitioner-Committee had right from the beginning been agitating for its right to hold the cattle fairs. Its claim was turned down on the ground that in the absence of bye-laws it could not hold a cattle fair. After it had framed the bye-laws and had declared its intention of holding the cattle-fairs, the authorities concerned did not allow them to do so and forced the arrangement upon them under which the Committee was paid various sums of money per year "on account of light and sanitation arrangements etc."