IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.426 of 2009 DASHRATH SINGH @ DASHRATH PD.SINGH, aged about 81 years, Son of Late Ram Prasad Singh, Resident of village Babhanbigha, P.S. Barbigha, District Sheikhpura … Petitioner-Appellant. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The District Magistrate, Sheikhpura 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Bhagalpur Range, Bhagalpur 4. Barbigha Nagar Panchayat, Barbigha (Sheikphpura) through its executive Officer 5. The Chairman, Barbigha Nagar Panchayat, Barbigha, District Sheikhpura 6. The Block Development Officer cum Chief Executive Officer, Barbigha Nagar panchayat, District Sheikhpura 7. The Empowered Standing Committee of the Barbigha Nagar Panchayat, Barbigha, District Sheikhpura 8. Ravindra Singh, Son of Shri Kailash Singh, Village Bojh, P.O. Ibrahimpur, P.S. Sarmera, District Nalanda 9. Rameshwar Singh, Son of Kameshwar Prasad Singh, Village Naurangpur, P.O. & P.S. Elani Jai Rampur, District Sheikhpura 10. Sunil Singh @ Sunil Prasad Singh, Son of Shri Rajeshwar Prasad Singh, Resident of village Rampur Sindai, P.O. & P.S.Barbigha, District Sheikhpura …Respondents-Respondents. ----- For the Appellant : Mr. Vinod Kanth, Sr.Adv. Mr.Arun Kumar,Adv. For Nagar Panchayat:Mr.Ram Balak Mahto, Sr.Adv. For Private respondents:Mr.K.D.Chatterjee. ----------- 4. 19.5.2009 Heard the parties. The petitioner applied for a licence to hold cattle fair on his raiyati land within Nagar Panchayat, Barbigha (Sheikhpura). It is his case that he has been managing cattle fair on this land under a licence from the Market Committee which earlier had statutory power to regulate such cattle fairs, and even earlier under his raiyati rights for the last about 50 years. The petitioner is aggrieved by rejection of his application for grant of licence by 2 communication dated 27.10.2008 issued by the Executive Officer of Nagar Panchayat, Barbigha. A number of submissions and points were raised against the Nagar Panchayat, Barbigha but finally the arguments have been confined to the issue whether the competent authority of Nagar Panchayat, Barbigha was justified in rejecting the petitioner’s application for licence when, according to the petitioner, he has about 3 ½ acres of land at the relevant place and he is in a position to use a part of that land so as to meet both major requirements as mentioned in the public notice issued by the Nagar Panchayat and published in the newspaper on 15.9.2008. A copy of that public notice has been annexed to the Memo of Appeal as Annexure 5 and the impugned communication has been annexed as Annexure 8. The two major conditions which are relevant for the purpose of this case appear as condition no.2 and 4 in the public notice. As per condition no.2 the land should be situated at least at a distance of 400 meters away from the main dense urban 3 population and the public places and as per condition no.4 it should be at a minimum distance of 100 feet from the main road. Besides the aforesaid two grounds, the licence of the appellant has been rejected for some other reasons which are not indicated in the public notice, including an objection that his application was not in the prescribed format. The other reasons may be indirectly related to the main conditions noticed above but those grounds must be tested on the basis of distance indicated in the grounds noticed above. So far as the objection on the basis of application not being in the prescribed format is concerned, that is not of much substance in view of the order we propose to pass. Although the appellant has claimed that his case stands on similar footing as that of at least two other applicants who have been granted licence for holding cattle fair over their raiyati land, we do not feel persuaded to go into that aspect of the matter beyond noticing that the appellant has alleged that near their lands also some 4 temple or Church which qualifies to be called as public place exists but existence of such structure has been condoned on the ground that the people do not frequent such structure. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, same criteria and test should be applied to existence of the bus stand or a bank near the land of the appellant. We clarify that the authorities should adopt same standard while judging the application of the appellant for grant of licence. We would like to indicate to the concerned authority that the appellant as a raiyat has a right to put his land to best use and the authority has only to regulate that right by granting a licence with a view to prevent any hazard or mishap or great inconvenience to the nearby residents. We are confident that this aspect of the matter shall also be kept in mind by the concerned authority. In the facts of the case, this appeal is disposed of with the liberty to the appellant that he may apply for grant of licence afresh giving the necessary particulars in the light of the public 5 Surendra/ notice. Such application, if filed, shall not be rejected on the ground that it is not in the prescribed format because we have not been able to locate any format of application under the relevant Act or in the public notice contained in Annexure 5 to the appeal. It is further made clear that in his application the appellant would be at liberty to give a revised offer by indicating portion of his land which may qualify on the touch-stone of two conditions noticed above. If such an application is filed by the appellant, the same should be considered by the concerned authority expeditiously and in accordance with law at an early date preferably within one month. If the application of the appellant does not find favour for any good reasons, such reasons should be communicated to the appellant at least in brief. This appeal is disposed of and the judgment and order under appeal shall stand modified accordingly. (Shiva Kirti Singh,ACJ) (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) 6