MUNICIPAL BOARD Vs. MTASGHARI JAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the defendant from the appellate decision of Mr. Ali Ausat who, on 28 February 1929, overset the judgment of B. Hari Shanker Vidyarthi, Munsif of Etah, in a suit in which the plaintiff-respondent had asked for the following relief: It may be declared that the notice dated 6 December 1927 sent and signed by the secretary of the defendant and issued to the plaintiff is illegal, null and void; that the rule relied on and referred to in the notice docs not apply to the plaintiff and that under it the defendant has no legal remedy (sic) or right to take proceedings against the plaintiff in case of broach of order by her.

(2.) The suit was instituted by Asghari Jan alias Lappo, caste prostitute, with her mother Mt. Bismilla for her next friend, and was directed against the Municipal Board of Etah. The plaintiff with her mother lived in a house situate on the Grand Trunk Road in the city of Etah. The house presumably belonged to Mt. Bismilla, the plaintiff's mother. On 6 December 1927 a notice was served upon the plaintiff in which she was asked not to carry on her occupation as a prostitute at her place of residence after a week from the date of the notice, otherwise legal steps would be taken against her. It was stated in this notice that by-laws had been framed by the Municipal Board and sanctioned by the Local Government whereby prostitutes were prohibited from carrying on their occupation in houses on the Grand Trunk Road, Kutcherry Road, Naththa Park road and Mt. Bismilla Road; and that information of this fact had been given to the public generally by proclamation and by beat of drum, but that notwithstanding this, the plaintiff was carrying on her occupation within the prohibited area. Hence the warning.

(3.) The plaintiff alleged that she was a virgo in tacta, that her profession was. singing and dancing, that no sort of fornication was practised in the house occupied by her and that the by-laws framed by the Municipal Board were therefore-not applicable to her. These allegations-were traversed by the defendant in the written statement dated 28 March, 1928. This written statement was signed and verified by the Municipal Vice-Chairman, Pundit Shiva Datt, B.A. LL.B., Vakil, Etah Courts. He declared that paras. 1 to 13 of his written statement, were true to his belief which was founded upon a perusal of papers. In para 7 of the written statement he denied that the plaintiff was a minor. In para. 8 he stated as follows: The plaintiff's allegation that she follows the-profession of dancing and singing only and is not a public prostitute is absolutely wrong. The plaintiff is a public prostitute. This is the means by which she earns her livelihood and this is her ordinary profession.