(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs-appellants for a declaration that the plaintiffs, and other Shia Mahomedans of Amroha have a right to take out in procession during the Ashrae Moharram, i.e. on 10 Moharram, tazias "which are up to 27 feet in height" in the public streets of Amroha by certain fixed routes and for a perpetual injunction ordering the defendants to raise the electric wires to such a height as not to cause interference or obstruction in the exercise of that right. The facts that led to the suit are as follows:
(2.) In the year 1929 the Local Government, in exercise of the powers vested in it by Section 3, Electricity Act (Act 9 of 1910), granted to Martin & Co., defendant 3, a license for the supply of electric energy -within the districts of Bijnor and Moradabad. The area within which the supply of electric energy by the licensee was to be compulsory was specified in the license, and the licensee was inter alia bound to lay down distribution lines in the municipal limits of Amroha to a length of 5 miles. Martin & Co., with the previous consent in meeting of the Local Government, assigned the license to the Upper Ganges Valley Electric Supply Co. Ltd., Moradabad, hereinafter referred to as defendant 4. Defendant 4 appointed Martin & Co., its managing agents.
(3.) The exercise of the powers conferred by the license involved the fixing of poles in and the placing of electric supply lines over, along or across the streets of Amroha and accordingly in view of the provisions of Secs.18 and 18, Electricity Act, Messrs. Martin & Co., defendant 3, the managing agents of defendant 4, prepared a scheme of the methods of construction proposed to be adopted and submitted the same for approval to the Municipal Board of Amroha, defendant 1, and to the Local Government. The proposal embodied in the scheme was to carry electric supply lines over the streets of Amroha at a minimum height of 20 feet from the ground. The Municipal Hoard of Amroha does not appear to have expressly communicated either its approval or disapproval of the proposed scheme, but the Local Government approved of the methods of construction proposed to be adopted by defendant 4.