JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Maithani, J.

Counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 in WPMS No.1111 of 2025 and counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 in WPMS No. 1122 of 2025 are taken on record. Misc. Application (IA) Nos.3 of 2025 and 3 of 2025 respectively, stand disposed of accordingly.

2. Since common question of facts and law involved in both these writ petitions, they are heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. The challenge in both these petitions is made to the license granted to the private respondents in both these petitions by the respondent no.2/Zila Panchayat, Udham Singh Nagar (“the Zila Panchayat”) for organizing Haat Bazar, once in a week.

5. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the Administrators of their respective Villages Gram Panchayat. They came to know that within their village territory, some outsiders have been organizing Haat Bazar; after inquiry, it was revealed that the Zila Panchayat has granted license to the private respondents, without notice to the respective Gram Panchayats. It is the case of the petitioners that Zila Panchayat has no authority to grant license for organizing Haat Bazar, within the territory of the petitioners’ Gram Panchayats. Therefore, challenge is made to the licenses that were granted to the private respondents in both these petitions, by the Zila Panchayat.

6. The respondent no.2/Zila Panchayat has filed its counter affidavit. Inter alia it is pleaded that the petitions are not maintainable because the Gram Sabha is not impleaded as party. According to the Zila Panchayat, under Section 106 of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016 (“the 2016 Act”), the Zila Panchayat is empowered to grant such licenses on private or public land.

7. The private respondents though represented, but have not filed any counter affidavit.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that within the petitioners’ Gram Panchayat territory, licenses have been granted by Zila Panchayat without any authority; no public notice was issued; the licenses were issued in most opaque manner and without any authority.

9. Learned counsel for the Zila Panchayat submits that under Section 106 of the 2016 Act, Zila Panchayat has framed Bye- Laws with regard to organizing Haat, etc. and Clause 18 of the Bye- Laws applies in the instant case, which is with regard to grant of license for organizing market in the private land. It is argued that the Zila Panchayat has not discriminated in grant of license, even if, the petitioners approach the Zila Panchayat, they may also be granted licenses. He submits that the public notice is necessary for organizing markets, when such markets are to be organized on any public land. It is argued that in the instant case, the private respondents did seek permission to organize market once in a week in their own land and as per Clause 18 of the Bye-Laws framed by Zila Panchayat under Section 106 of the 2016 Act, such licenses have been granted. He also referred to the principle of law, as laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No.50 of 2020, Sukhdev Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, to argue that, in fact, the Zila Panchayat jurisdiction in such matter has already been upheld. He also submits that the respective Gram Panchayats in the instant case, has no Bye-Laws. Therefore, the action of the respondent no.2/Zila Panchayat may not be questioned.

10. Learned counsel for the private respondents in both the petitions submits that the private respondents have obtained licenses, as per Rules by payment of fee, on their own land for organizing market.

11. Section 106 of the Act empowers the Zila Panchayat to frame its Bye-Laws and it also makes separate head, under which, such Bye-Laws may be made. Head ‘D’ relates to Bye-Laws relating to Markets, slaughter-houses, sale of food, etc. This issue, in fact, has already been settled by this Cou