NANHU LAL VITHUL Vs. GAYA LODGING HOUSE COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two miscellaneous judicial cases under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of the same alleged violation of the petitioners' fundamental right under Article 19 have been heard together and this judgment will govern both of them.

(2.) M. J. C. 718 of 1960 was filed on the 1st of September 1960, impleading Gaya Lodging House Committee through its President, the District Magistrate of Gaya, as respondent No. 1, and the various other persons constituting that Committee as other respondents. The petitioners claim-to carry on their ancestral profession of pandas in the town of Gaya and also claim to own lodging houses duly licensed under the Bihar and Orissa Places of Pilgrimage Act (Bihar and Orissa Act 2 of 1920). Every year in the month of Aswin during the pitripaksha a mela is held at Gaya where Hindu pilgrims come for offering oblations (pindas) to the departed souls of their ancestors, avail of the guidance and other services of the local pandas and pay for the services rendered by them. The petitioners' case further is that the pandas along with their family members and servants have to go to the railway platform to contact the pilgrims in order to make their services available to them and to earn their livelihood. There is a Committee known as Lodging House Committee appointed by the State Government under Section 20(2) of the Bihar and Orissa Act 2 of 1920 for the limited purpose of administering 'Lodging House Fund' in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. The District Magistrate of Gaya is the ex-officio President of this Committee. The said Committee framed rules for issue of identity cards to the Gayawal Pandas which haw been made applicable to the petitioners also, pro-viding, amongst other things, that daring the pitripaksha mela only the head Gayawal panda will be allowed on railway platform for receiving his pilgrims: other card holders during this mela shall stay outside the railway platform to attend to their pilgrims. A copy of the rules is annexure A to this writ application. The petitioners attack these rules as being unconstitutional as they violate their fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) and (g) of the Constitution of India. The rules have also been attacked as having been framed not by the whole Committee but by 3 members only and without any authority of law.

(3.) The Secretary of the Gaya Lodging Houso Committee reconstituted under Notification. No. IV/L201/1958/3965/H9 dated 5-2-58 has filed a counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents, whrein he has stated that competition has become keener and disputes more frequent between the pandas, their servants and their agents. Many a time touts employed by different Gayawals mislead pilgrims resulting in disputes between touts and agents employed by them. Sometimes rival agents physically drag pilgrims to their principals. With a view to eliminate this undesirable form of competition resulting in riots and affray and harassment of pilgrims inside the railway station premises, it was found imperative to introduce some measure of regulation. He further states in the counter-affidavit that the power to introduce regulations in the matter of admitting persons to station premises has always remained vested in the railway authorities, at whose request and with a view to assist them to know the identity of individuals as to whether they are the head pandas or members of the family of the pandas or their servants and agents the impugned rules have been framed, which "rules are merely enabling and do not compel any individual by virtue of these rules to obtain an identity said issued under those rules". The rules do not bind the railway authorities either to admit or not to admit persons of any description either holding identity cards issued under the said rules or persons who may not hold such identity card. The matter of admission to the railway premises "is entirely within the power of the railway authorities". The specific impugned provision of the rule that during the pitripaksha mela only the head Gayawal panda shall be allowed on Gaya railway platform for receiving his pilgrims and other cardholders shall stay outside, constitute merely an expression of the opinion of the Committee and has no binding or legal force of any kind on the railway authorities. There is no fundamental right of individual to be admitted to the railway platform or the railway premises for the purposes of receiving or pursuading or coercing pilgrims to accept any panda with the object of rendering services during the mela and the power to restrict or regulate the entry to the railway platform vests In the railway authorities, and there is no question of violation of any fundamental right of the petitioners. In paragraph 15 of this counter-affidavit, it has been further stated :