Back
High Court Of Calcutta
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
ABDUL ANNAS KHAN - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
W. P. 11587 (W) Of 2005
Decided On : 08/25/2005
WEST BENGAL PANCHAYAT ACT, 1973 - SECTION 116 AND 117 - RENEWAL OF LICENSE - VALIDITY OF GRANT OF RENEWAL FOR BACK PERIOD OF 15 YEARS - ILLEGAL - CHANGE OF SCHEDULE FOR HOLDING HAT - POWER OF PANCHAYAT SAMITI - JUSTIFICATION FOR FORMATION OF OPINION REGARDING BREACH OF PEACE - NOT REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED BY COURT IN GREAT DETAILS - ILLEGAL TRADER CANNOT BE FAVOURED BY STATUTORY AUTHORITY AT COST OF LEGAL TRADER.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a cow market trader, challenged the order of the Block Development Officer, Chandipur, directing him to either close the market or change the days for holding the market to any day other than Tuesday and Wednesday. The order was passed on the basis of a representation made by the respondent, another cow market trader, who was also holding the market on Tuesday and Wednesday. The petitioner contended that the Block Development Officer had no authority to pass such an order and that the respondent was not running his business legally as he did not have a valid license.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the order of the Block Development Officer was illegal as he had no authority to pass such an order under the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973. The court also held that the respondent was not running his business legally as he did not have a valid license. The court further held that the Panchayat Samiti had acted illegally in granting the respondent a license for the back period of 15 years.
Issues: 1. Whether the Block Development Officer had the authority to pass the order directing the petitioner to either close the market or change the days for holding the market? 2. Whether the respondent was running his business legally? 3. Whether the Panchayat Samiti had acted illegally in granting the respondent a license for the back period of 15 years?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Block Development Officer had no authority to pass the order directing the petitioner to either close the market or change the days for holding the market, as the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 did not confer such power on him. 2. The court held that the respondent was not running his business legally as he did not have a valid license. 3. The court held that the Panchayat Samiti had acted illegally in granting the respondent a license for the back period of 15 years, as the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 did not provide for such a grant.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the Block Development Officer and directed the Panchayat Samiti to renew the petitioner's license for the period from 2005 to 2006 without disturbing his schedule of holding the market on Tuesday and Wednesday in every week.
( 1 ) SERIES of litigations have taken place between the petitioner and the respondent No. 8 who are two rival traders: both engaged in the same business of holding Cowmarket within the same panchayat Samiti. A dispute arose between them with regard to the fixation of dates for holding their respective hats on their respective plots of land.
( 2 ) LET me give the short background of the dispute between the parties leading to the filing of this writ petition.
( 3 ) FOR holding a cowmarket in chandipur Panchayat Samiti area within the district of Purba Medinipur, the petitioner got his land lying at Plot No. 1037 (. 24 decimals), plot No. 1035 (. 02 decimal), Plot No. 1036 (. 05 decimal), Plot No. 1016 (29 decimal) and Plot No. 1039 (. 02 decimal)Total area 62 decimal at Mouza Nar, j. L. No. 39 within Khatian No. 603, police Station Chandipur, District Purba Medinipur (hereinafter referred to as the said land) converted from agricultural to non agricultural land under section 4c (a) of the West Bengal Land Reforms act read with Rule 5a of the West Bengal land Reforms Rules on the basis of an order passed by the competent authority under the West bengal Land Reforms Act.
( 4 ) PURSUANT to an application filed by the petitioner, a licence for holding the said cowmarket on the aforesaid land of the petitioner was granted by the Chandipur Panchayat Samiti to the petitioner on 11th january 2005. The said licence remained valid till 31st March 2005.
( 5 ) AFTER obtaining the said licence, the petitioner started running his business of holding cowmarket on the said plots of land on two days in a week, i. e. , on every Tuesday and Wednesday.
( 6 ) SK. Anwar alias Fakir, the respondent No. 8 herein, who is also holding the cowmarket on every Tuesday and Wednesday in a week, submitted a representation to the executive Officer and the Block development Officer, Nandigram-III Panchayat samiti on 7th February, 2005 praying for alteration of the schedule for holding the cowmarket by the petitioner, so that the competition between two rival traders in the same trade can be avoided.
( 7 ) COMPLAINING inaction on the part of the concerned Block development Officer, a writ petition being W. P. No. 2614 (W) of 2005 was filed by the respondent No. 8.
( 8 ) THE said writ petition was ultimately disposed of by Justice Tapan kumar Dutt on 22nd February, 2005 with a direction upon the concerned block Development Officer to consider the representation of the said respondent No. 8 in accordance with law and to dispose of the same by a reasoned order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the said respondent as well as the petitioner herein, within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of the said order.
( 9 ) PURSUANT to the said direction, the concerned Block Development officer, Chandipur, Purba Medinipur and the Executive Officer, chandipur Panchayat Samiti, disposed of the said representation of the respondent No. 8 by an order dated 8th March 2005, whereby the petitioner was directed either to close the Hat (market) or to change the days for holding Hat (market) to any day other than Tuesday and wednesday, as may be fixed by the licensing authority. It was further mentioned therein that the licensing authority shall have the full authority either to revoke the licence or to deny renewal of the licence or to fix the day of holding cowhat on any day other than Tuesday and wednesday as they think fit.
( 10 ) THE said order passed by the block Development Officer, chandipur was challenged by the petitioner by filing a writ petition before this Court which was registered as W. P. No. 6473 (W) of 2005.
( 11 ) ANOTHER writ petition was also filed by the petitioner challenging the inaction on the part of the concerned respondent for not renewing the licence of the petitioner for the current year though the application for grant of such renewal was submitted by the petitioner even prior to the expiry of the t
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
