Case: Narmadeshwar Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar

The Jama had to be fixed in accordance with Rule 7(u) of the Rules. The question is whether it was under clause (i) or under clause (ii) that it was to be so fixed. The High Court has not clearly kept in view the distinction between the two clauses. Rule 7(u) reads as follows :7(u) Fixation of reserve Jama.(i) In respect of such Hat, Bazar or Mela, a reserve Jama shall be fixed by the Collector or the prescribed authority on the basis of the average of the Jama, at which such Hat, Bazar or Mela was settled during the preceding here years. In case of improvements and developments in respect of the premises of such Hat, Bazar or Mela or in the neighbourhood thereof, for which the outgoing intermediaries and/or their heirs are not responsible, and which are likely to increase the potentialities for fielding a higher Jama, such potentialities may also be taken into consideration and the reserve Jama can be suitably increased with the permission of the Commissioner(ii) In case of difficulty in fixing the reserve Jama on the basis of the average of the Jamas of the preceding three years, due toy of figures or otherwise, the Collector or the prescribed authority shall fix the reserve Jama in his best judgment with the approval of the Commissioner of the Division.

Reasoning: 4. In the instant case it appears to us that the figures of the reserve Jamas for the preceding three years were not available. The Collector, therefore, proceeded to fix it under clause (ii) of Rule 7(u) of the Rules. It was fixed at Rs. 5, 000 per year and that was approved by the Commissioner also. There was no illegality in fixing the reserve Jama according to the best judgment of the Collector. The Division Bench of the High Court, thereof is correct5. But to the view expressed by the High Court in the judgment under appeal with reference to the provisions of Rule 7(u) is not quite correct. The High Court has committed a mistake in observing :6. The view so expressed is erroneous and we do not approve of it. The correct position of law is as we have explained above. But on the facts the decision of the High Court as it is, is correct and cannot be interfered with.