LAWS(PAT)-2007-4-69

SANT KUMAR UPADHYA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On April 26, 2007
Sant Kumar Upadhya Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Bihar and Orissa Places of Pilgrimage Act, 1920 prevents accommodation of pilgrims for gain in unlicensed houses and authorises grant of license to house owners where such pilgrims may be accommodated. Section 20 of the Act directs creation of a fund called "The Lodging House Fund" which shall comprise of the fees received under the Act and contributions made by the State Government to appoint any person or a committee to administer the said fund. Section 21 of the Act authorizes the Commissioner to apply the said fund to, amongst others, the sanitary improvement and conservancy of the area and of any place, building or road which is or may be regulated by the rules made under the Act.

(2.) THE State Government has constituted a committee to administer such funds pertaining to Rajgir. While constituting such funds, the State Government has included in the committee many of its officers and also a few private citizens. Although the Commissioner may direct application of the funds for sanitary improvement and conservancy but having regard to the nature of the things admitted on pleadings in the instant case, how the funds would be applied for such sanitary improvement and conservancy had althrough out been and still is being taken by the said committee. Instead of deciding to allocate such funds to an institution or authority for sanitary improvement and conservancy of Hot Springs and Maths situate at Rajgir, the committee has decided to engage the petitioners as menial workers to carry out menial work of cleaning and keeping the Hot Springs and associated Maths free of dirt.

(3.) THE work for which the petitioners have been engaged is perennial in nature. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that pilgrims flock at Rajgir only for about four months a year and accordingly the effective work done by the petitioners remains restricted for a period of four months in a year. This contention, however, is not acceptable principally for the reason that the petitioners are not engaged seasonally; they have been engaged round the clock 365 days and are paid monthly emoluments. Secondly, the petitioners have been assigned the work of keeping the Hot Springs clean and bathable. It has not been stated in the counter affidavit that there is any devise by which the flow of Hot Springs is stopped for eight months. From the Hot Springs, water is flowing for 365 days. To keep such water and place clean and bathable the place is required to be cleaned every day.