JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the contesting respondents.
2. The petitioner, Dambar Singh, approached this Court earlier by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12053 of 1984, which had been decided by the Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment and order dated 4th December, 1984. The aforesaid writ petition was filed by the petitioner against the order of the licensing authority passed under the provisions of U. P. Kshettra Samltis and Zila Parishad Adhiniyam, whereby the licensing authority under the impugned order has granted licence to the Gaon Sabha to hold a cattle market on Friday. The Division Bench relying upon the decision of the Special Leave (Civil) No. 5O72 of 1980, Ram Ballabh Tewari v. Sunder Singh and Ors., which had been filed against the decision of this Court dated 20th June, 1960 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 467 of 1978 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :
"We do not think that the respondent No. 1 (Sunder Singh) can be absolutely prevented from holding cattle market in his bhumidhari plot. The licensing authority, however, in order to avoid any breach of peace while granting the licence may take into consideration as to whether the said respondent should be granted licence to hold the cattle market on the same days on which the petitioner is holding cattle market in his plot. As far as possible such a thing should be avoided in order to avoid various types of complications."
3. The Division Bench further held that the licensing authority has no jurisdiction to cancel the licence of the petitioner which had already been renewed. We had already adverted to bye-law No. 23 which restricts the right of the licensing authority to cancel any existing licence only in a situation where a licensee has observed the conditions of a licence in its breach. Neither the Licensing Officer has recorded such a finding nor is it any body a case that the petitioner did not conform to the conditions of the licence issued to him. With this law, the Division Bench has held as under :
"As we have held that under the law both the petitioner as well as the Gaon Sabha are entitled to hold markets on their respective land, we do not consider it necessary to quash the order of the licensing officer granting the licence to the Gaon Sabha to hold such a market. However, we quash the order of the licensing officer to the extent it has permitted the Gaon Sabha to hold cattle markets on Tuesday and Fridays. Obviously, these days were allotted by the licensing officer on the footing that, according to him. the petitioner was not entitled to hold the cattle market at all. The licensing officer shall now determine the particular day or days on which either of the two parties will be permitted to hold cattle market on their respective land. She shall do so for giving an opportunity to both the parties to put forward their respective cases. We make it clear that the expression of our views, if any, on the merits of the case is merely tentative. The licensing officer is left entirely free to investing to the relevant facts himself and to record his own findings.
This petition succeeds in part and is allowed. The impugned order dated 1st September, 1984, passed by the licensing officer of the Zila Parishad is quashed in so far as it purports to cancel the licence of the petitioner. The impugned order is also quashed to the extent that under it the Gaon Sabha is entitled to hold cattle market on Tuesday and Fridays. The licensing officer shall not proceed to act in accordance with the directions given by this Court in this judgment. He has to fix the day or days for each of the parties within one month of the production of a certified copy of the order of this Court before him by either party."
4. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction of this Court, the licensing authority by his order impugned in the present writ petition has rejected the petitioner's case on the ground that since the income from the cattle market held by Gaon Sabha will go in the public exchequer. Therefore, the petitioner should be shifted to hold the cattle market on some other day, i.e., Tuesday. The reason is wholly arbitrary and contrary to the direction issued by this Court.
5. In view of what has been said above, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 9th January, 1985, is quashed. The petitioner is entitled for the costs.