Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 4037 (HP)

Pawan Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-12-16

Ajay Mohan Goel

body2025
JUDGMENT : AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- (i) “That the impugned Annexure P-6 dated 08.12.2025 issued by respondent No.3 may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to allow the petitioner to continue with his Trade Fair at Jawahar Park Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. commencing w.e.f. 10.12.2025 to 10.01.2026.” 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure P-6, in terms whereof, the permission granted to the petitioner to install stalls in Jawahar Park ground in Sunder Nagar to hold a trade fair from 10.12.2025 to 10.01.2026 stands cancelled. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner approached the authorities concerned for the purposes of holding a trade fair in the said Jawahar Park. On his application filed on 28.08.2025, vide Annexure P-1, communication dated 06.11.2025, the petitioner was granted permission to hold the trade fair on payment of Rs.11,000/- per day for 31 days subject to the conditions mentioned therein. This permission was granted by Senior Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Sunder Nagar, H.P. Thereafter, a formal permission was also issued in favour of the petitioner by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sunder Nagar on 26.11.2025, vide Annexure P-2. Learned counsel further submitted that in lieu of the grant of said permission, the petitioner incurred huge expenditure and he put in place the infrastructure to hold the trade fair is evident from the photographs appended with the petition as Annexure P-3. 3. Learned counsel, referred to Annexure P-4 and submitted that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, dated 06.12.2025 (Annexure P-4), in terms whereof, the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the permission granted to him be not cancelled as there was protest against the grant of the permission by the public, who agitated the grant of permission on the ground that the same would hinder their use of the park in the morning and evening time for jogging, exercises and also for using the same for public recreation. It was also mentioned in this show cause notice that even the Vyapar Mandal and other business communities and general public were complaining that a parallel bazar was being opened, which would offer the same articles, which were available in the market, which would adversely affect their business. It was also mentioned in this show cause notice that even the Vyapar Mandal and other business communities and general public were complaining that a parallel bazar was being opened, which would offer the same articles, which were available in the market, which would adversely affect their business. The petitioner filed his response to the show cause, but, in terms of Annexure P-6, the permission was cancelled. 4. Learned counsel further submitted that the cancellation of the permission was arbitrary and discriminatory and not sustainable in the eyes of law. He submitted that the petitioner had incurred huge expenses to the tune of Rs.20 lac by installing the structures, tents, sheds etc., and otherwise also, the reasons, which are spelled out in the impugned annexures, are no reasons to cancel the grant of permission to organize the trade fair. He submitted that as the impugned act of the respondents was completely arbitrary, therefore, the petition be allowed, as prayed for. He also submitted that the State Government also holds fairs in public grounds, like ones in Kullu, Mandi and Rampur Bushahr. Therefore also, rejection of the prayer of the petitioner is arbitrary. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Council, Sunder Nagar, submitted that there is no arbitrariness in the impugned order as the same has been issued in the larger public interest. He argued that after the permission was granted in favour of the petitioner to hold the fair, there was large public resentment and taking into consideration this public resentment, which was not only limited to the businessmen of the area, the grant of permission was recalled. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had only paid an amount of Rs.82,000/- approximately to the Council, which was returned back to the petitioner and further the cheque of Rs.3,41,000/- which was submitted by the petitioner was in fact never encashed by the Municipal Council. Accordingly, he submitted that as the act of the respondents was in larger public interest and as there was no merit in the present petition, the same be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the petition as well as the reply filed by respondent No.3. 7. Accordingly, he submitted that as the act of the respondents was in larger public interest and as there was no merit in the present petition, the same be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the petition as well as the reply filed by respondent No.3. 7. On the previous date, learned counsel for the petitioner had already made a statement that no rejoinder was intended to be filed to the reply of respondent No.3. 8. The moot issue, which this Court has to adjudicate in the present petition is as to whether public places like park etc., can be let out to private individuals to hold trade fairs at the expense of the right of the people of the locality, for whose benefit, these parks are actually created. 9. In the present case, the permission to hold the trade fair was granted in favour of the petitioner in the Jawahar Park. The permission was not granted in any dedicated area, constructed by the Municipal Council for the purpose of holding such like fairs, but, permission was granted to hold a trade fair in a public park. Now, a perusal of the show cause notice demonstrates that it was mentioned therein that after the permission to hold the fair was granted in favour of the petitioner, there was resentment amongst the public at large, who objected to the grant of the permission on the ground that the holding of the fair would create hindrance in their use of the park for purposes of physical activities like jogging, exercising etc. Other reasons also stand spelled out in the show cause including the resentment of the businessman of the area. 10. As per Balck’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition, park is defined as “an inclosed pleasure-ground in or near a city, set apart for the recreation of the public”. 11. Thus, obviously, the first right on a public park is that of the public. The Court is using the term ‘public park’ in the sense that it is a Government owned park and not a private park. 12. Obviously, this park has to be used and is being used by the residents of the area including children and elderly for physical activities, which obviously, includes jogging and exercise also. The Court is using the term ‘public park’ in the sense that it is a Government owned park and not a private park. 12. Obviously, this park has to be used and is being used by the residents of the area including children and elderly for physical activities, which obviously, includes jogging and exercise also. Further, this being the winter season, obviously, during day time also, the open areas are used by the public at large for enjoying the sun. 13. Now, under these circumstances, was it prudent for the Municipal Council, Sunder Nagar, at the first instance to allot the park for the purpose of holding a trade fair to the petitioner? In the considered view of this Court, the answer is in the negative. In the light of the reasons that public parks are meant for the usage of the public, ordinarily, these places should not be let out for the purposes of holding trade fairs etc., as was done in the present case. 14. In fact, according to this Court, it is not the act of cancelling the permission in favour of the petitioner, which is arbitrary, but, it was the grant of permission in favour of the petitioner which was arbitrary. The monetary benefit of one cannot outweigh the larger public interest and, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the cancellation of the permission in favour of the petitioner infringes Article 19 of Constitution of India does not has any merit. 15. As far as the issue of resentment of the local business community is concerned, though, this Court would not like to make any substantive observation on the same, but, if the same also weighed with the authorities while cancelling the permission, then also, it cannot be said that the cancellation of permission was arbitrary. In the same manner, in which the petitioner has a right to protect his interest, which he has done by way of filing this writ petition, obviously, the local businessman of that area also have a right to protect their interest, which they did by raising their objections before the authorities against the grant of permission. 16. In the same manner, in which the petitioner has a right to protect his interest, which he has done by way of filing this writ petition, obviously, the local businessman of that area also have a right to protect their interest, which they did by raising their objections before the authorities against the grant of permission. 16. One more aspect of the matter, which this Court wants to highlight is that assuming that the Municipal Council has a right to let out public parks to hold trade fairs by private individual, even then, letting it out to an individual without issuing an advertisement, that the Corporation intended to let out its property for the purpose of holding a trade fair, may be to generate some corpus is bad. It is not understood as to why this favour was shown to one individual i.e., the petitioner in the present case. 17. As far as the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the State also holds fairs in Mandi, Kullu and Rampur Bushahr in public grounds is concerned, these are international festivals and, that too, Shivratri, Dussehra and Lavi festivals, which are being held since generations and the kind of business fair, which the petitioner intended to organize, cannot be compared with the above international fairs held by the Government. These international fairs have involvement of the public masses at large and also have religious and social sanctity attached with them, whereas the trade fair which the petitioner intended to organize, was only for his personal monetary benefit in a public park. 18. Therefore, in light of the above discussion, as this Court does not finds any infirmity in the cancellation of the permission, which was granted in favour of the petitioner, this petition is dismissed. As far as the contention of the petitioner is concerned that the cancellation of the permission has resulted in monetary losses to him, obviously, he can always approach the Civil Court claiming damages against the Municipal Council. 19. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.