K.C. Agrawal, J. - (1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed challenging the order of the Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad, granting a licence of the roadside patri in front of 19/35, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, in favour of respondent No. 3 pursuant to the auction thereof dated 13-5-1975. There were initially seven petitioners in this petition. Counsel for the petitioners made a statement on 28-8-1975 that he was not pressing this petition on behalf of petitioner Nos. 2 to 7. Consequently I am concerned only with the petitioner No. 1, that is S. M. Kamal, who according to the allegations made in the writ petition is the General Manager of the Palace Cinema.
(2.) The facts leading to the above petition are as under : The Nagar Mahapalika advertised the auction of piece of land situated on the Mahatma Gandhi Marg near the Palace Cinema for being held on 13-5-1975. The purpose of the auction was to issue a licence for a cycle stand. On 13-5-1975, the auction took place and the respondent No. 3 being the highest bidder was found entitled by the Mahapalika to obtain the same for the period expiring on 31-3-1976, The petitioner challenged the right of the Mahapalika to auction the above piece of land for running a cycle stand over a public street. The allegations made in the writ petition were that prior to 11-5-1975, the Nagar Mahapalika never had any cycle stand over the land in dispute and, therefore, the said auction did not pertain to the sale of any theka of a cycle stand, which was advertised in the notice. The petitioner also contended that the Mahapalika was a statutory body created under the U. P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam. According to the petitioner, it has only those rights and obligations which have been conferred upon it by the said Adhiniyam. The Nagar Mahapalika has been empowered under Section 128 read with Section 151 of the Adhiniyam to dispose of the property acquired by or vested in it in specified manners only for the purposes of the Act and subject to the provisions thereof. As, according to the petitioner, the running of a cycle stand is not one of the purposes mentioned in the Act, the auction was beyond the powers of the Nagar Mahapalika.
(3.) A counter-affidavit was filed by the Nagar Mahapalika asserting that the land in question vested in it under Section 128 of the Adhiniyam and the Mahapalika was within the statutory rights to license a part of the road or patri for the purposes of he cycle stand. The licence of the roads, according to the allegations made in the counter-affidavit, is given in Section 295 of the Adhiniyam. Subsequently, the Mahapalika filed another counter-affidavit stating the purpose for which the land had been auctioned by it on 13-5-1975. It stated that the surface area of the land was 8 feet x 10 feet and it was not surrounded by bamboos or other structures, and that it was a part of the road patri given to the respondent No. 3 in the auction. It further stated that he Mahapalika had already made provisions providing for parking places for cars, scooters etc. in a busy locality like Civil Lines where a large number of persons come. It was thought essential to make a provision for a cycle stand where people could keep their cycles while they were either witnessing the cinema or strolling in the evening. Those who would utilise the services of the cycle stand would be required to pay a nominal fee to the person who runs the cycle stand and guarantees the security of their cycles. The Nagar Mahapalika asserted that the establishment of the cycle stand would fall within the ambit of Section 114 (xxi), (xxix) or Section 115 (xx) and (xxxi). The petitioner has filed a reply to the aforesaid counter-affidavit denying that the Mahapalika could under the Adhiniyam provide for the cycle stand licence. The emphasis of the petitioner is that the Nagar Mahapalika gave this land on auction only for the purpose of augmenting its revenue.;