IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15586 of 2008 H.Pillai, Manager, Fun Fair Expo/Disney Land, with its head Office at ¼ Neelratan Road, Kolkata at present Office at Patliputra Housing Construction Society Maidan, Patliputra, in the town and District-Patna ………… Peititioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar, through Secretary Department of Sports and Culture, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate, Patna. 3. The Secretary, Patliputra Housing Construction Society, Patliputra, Patna. 4. The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Patna. 5. Officer Incharge, Patliputra Police Station, Patliputra, Patna. ………….. Respondents. ------------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Badari Narayan Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Prabhakar Tekriwan, GA-I. -------------- 03 24.10.2008 The petitioner represents an organization that moves all over the country from place to place and arranges for sale of various merchandise and entertainment. Its set up is commonly known as “Disney Land”. Intending to set up for some time such an exhibition sale it approached Peoples Patliputra Co-operative Society, wherein, there was substantial vacant land. The Co-operative granted it permission. It applied to the Superintendent of Police, Patna, who gave a no-objection certificate. It applied to the Patna Municipal Corporation, who also gave their no-objection certificate. They then applied to the Sub-Divisional Officer, who also gave no-objection certificate. They then sought no-objection from Electrical Inspector, Government of Bihar, Patna, who also gave them no-objection certificate. Then, the petitioner approached the Fire Department, the Fire Officer, Patna subject to certain conditions gave permission. Now, the petitioner with - 2 - all certifications and no-objections applied to the District Magistrate- cum-Collector, Patna, who refused to grant permission and warned the petitioner against starting the exhibition without confirming to certain directions contained therein and without clear no-objection from the District Magistrate. This brought the petitioner to this Court. Inasmuch as, it is submitted that the things had to start long back. They have already been set up and now unnecessarily and without authority the District Magistrate is restricting their rights. Upon notice, State has filed a counter affidavit. To the query from the authority for intervening in the matter, Mr. Prabhakar Tekriwal, learned counsel for the State has drawn my attention to the conditions of 133 Cr.P.C., which deals with nuisance. He submits with special reference to Section 133 (b) and 133(d) that these provisions unable the District Magistrate to intervene in the matter. I am not impressed. Before the District Magistrate can take action in terms of Section 133 a proceeding has to be registered and initiated. Here, the District Magistrate does not even refer to any such proceeding or even to exercise of power with reference to Section 133 Cr.P.C. A reference to the order of the District Magistrate would show that he is seeking to exercise some inherent power which in fact he lacks. The property belong to the Co-operative, it is situated in Municipal Corporation, none of whom have any objection. Still keeping in view Section 133 (b) is concerned that has no application, inasmuch as the community in which the event is to be take place itself has granted permission to Disney Land through its Secretary, but, at the same time I am not oblivious of - 3 - public safety etc., as contemplated by Section 133 (d) of the Cr.P.C. Undoubtedly, it is a place where large number of people would assemble. The Collector-Cum-District Magistrate would have intervened provided he had initiated a proper proceeding, but, be that as it may, in substance the Collector has referred the matter to the Fire Department and that is the only objection that is subsisting. Much has been said by the learned State counsel with regard to the authority of the Fire Officer, who has granted the no-objection. Again, be that as it may, the State Fire Officer would within 24 hours inspect the entire place and grant permission in accordance with law. It would open to him to lay down conditions keeping in view statutory provisions and the public safety. This, in my view, would take care of whatever objection the District Magistrate is seeking to raise. The State Fire Officer would be well advised to take in consideration the enquiries already made by the District Fire Officer, who would otherwise competent in the matter. Needless to say that the State Fire Officer would uninfluence by communication it has received from the District Magistrate and would act on basis independent thereof. Incase of any query he would take expeditious step in the matter because it should be kept in mind that every day delays would adversely affect the petitioner. This disposes of the writ petition. Let a copy of this order be given to learned counsel for the State. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)