RISALDAR AMIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing Annexures P. 1 and P. 2 by which fee has been levied on the fairs in village Gurgaon.

(2.) The petitioners profess faith in the temple known as Sitla Mata Masani Temple (hereinafter called the temple) situated in village Gurgaon, Tehsil and District Gurgaon and claim to be its worshippers. This temple is situate in a part of the land. On another part is a well for drinking water used by the villagers and on the adjoining land, there is a dharmsala attached to the said temple. Annually, a fair in connection with the said temple is organised by the Hindu Jats or by a Managing Committee of the temple. Various amenities like water, sanitation etc. are provided by the organizers of the fair to the visiting pilgrims. The said village is within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti, Gurgaon, (hereinafter called the Samiti) which carries on its functions under the provisions of the Punjab Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act). The Samiti passed a unanimous resolution on April 3, 1976, in which it was decided to levy cess of 50 paise per adult and 25 paise per child between the age of five to twelve on the visitors who visited the fairs held in three villages, namely Gurgaon, Mubarikpur and Chandu Budheda. This resolution was passed and levy recommended "in order to increase the income of the Samiti and to improve its financial position". Copy of the said resolution is Annexure P. 1. On this, the Executive Officer of the Samiti invited objections from those likely to be affected by the notice, a copy of which is Annexure P. 3. As no objections were received, the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon, accorded necessary approval to the levy of the fee under section 68(2) of the Act, by his order, dated April 19, 1976 (Annexure P. 2). These two orders, namely, the resolution of the Samiti levying the fee (Annexure P. 1) and the order of the Deputy Commissioner sanctioning the same (Annexure P. 2) are challenged in the present writ petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has attacked the validity of the two impugned orders on the following grounds :-