IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10930 of 2010 1. MAHESH PRASAD GUPTA S/O LATE TELAK LAL GUPTA R/O VILL.- SIMARIA GHAT, P.S.- BARAUNI, DISTT.- BEGUSARAI 2. NAND KISHORE GUPTA S/O ANANDI PRASAD GUPTA R/O VILL.- SIMARIA GHAT, P.S.- BARAUNI, DISTT.- BEGUSARAI 3. SUBODH JHA S/O TAPESHWAR JHA R/O VILL.- SIMARIA GHAT, P.S.- BARAUNI, DISTT.- BEGUSARAI 4. SANTOSH JHA S/O RAMJEE JHA R/O VILL.- SIMARIA GHAT, P.S.- BARAUNI, DISTT.- BEGUSARAI 5. SURMUN DAS S/O LATE BAKE DAS R/O VILL.- SIMARIA GHAT, P.S.- BARAUNI, DISTT.- BEGUSARAI 6. PRAVU MAHTO S/O LIWER MAHTO R/O VILL.- SIMARIA GHAT, P.S.- BARAUNI, DISTT.- BEGUSARAI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BEGUSARAI 3. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BEGUSARAI 4. THE LAND REFORMS DEPUTY COLLECTOR, BEGUSARAI 5. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, BARAUNI, P.S. BARAUNI, DISTT.- BEGUSARAI ----------- 2/ 28/04/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The petitioners are stated to be petty shopkeepers at the Simariya Ghat Mela Bazar in the District of Begusarai. The grievance is that they are subjected to differential treatment on payment of tolls than five others in respect of whom this Court gave certain directions for fixation of the quantum of payment in C.W.J.C. No.2338/01 including enhancement thereof. The contractors appointed by the State Authorities by sheer muscle power are harassing the petitioners by demanding and extracting unreasonable payments from them. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. The stand of the State is that the five persons considered in C.W.J.C. No.2338/01 form a different 2 class inasmuch as they were lawful settlees within the Mela Bazar area. The petitioners are alleged to have acknowledged in their representation at Annexure-1 that they were outside the Mela Bazar area. The stand therefore is that they cannot claim equality of treatment and the rates with regard to the petitioners is yet to be finally determined as stated in paragraph-8 of the counter affidavit. The counter affidavit, to this Court, appears peculiar clarifying nothing, answering nothing. If there is a designated Mela area, quite obviously the shops have to be within the Mela area. If the respondents are permitting establishment of shops in the periphery outside the Mela area they cannot commit an illegality and then seek to encash illegality by imposing differential treatment on the threat that the alleged violators had no option but to accept the terms being dictated by the State. The State appears to be encouraging illegality. But, this order cannot be construed as a carte blanche to the respondents to overnight throw out the petitioners on the basis of the observations contained herein. The petitioners contend that they have been there for considerable number of years. If the State has permitted them to occupy the periphery Mela area of the 3 Mela and has been extracting tolls from them through contractors, the State as a facet of Article-21 of the Constitution of India is bound to make alternative arrangements to rehabilitate them before removing them so as not to leave them without a source of bread and butter. So long as the State allows the illegality to continue, it cannot take the advantage of its own conduct to distinguish the petitioners from the five others. This Court therefore holds that so long as the respondents allow the petitioners to continue in the periphery area of the Mela, they have to be considered in the light of the directions of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.2338/01. The responsibility to ensure fair treatment to the citizens lies with the State who has appointed the contractors. The writ application stands disposed with the aforesaid observations. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)