- (1.) TARUN Agarwala, J. The plaintiffs filed a suit for a permanent injunction praying that the defendants and their agents and associates be restrained from interfering in any manner in the functioning of the plaintiffs by providing Deotai Boat, (Godess boat) inside the river Ganga and Yamuna and at the Sangam point, to the pilgrims and bathers. The plaintiffs further prayed that the defendants should be restrained from doing the business and functioning as Gosain Pandas inside the water on their personal boats for the purposes of providing facilities to the bathers and the pilgrims. The plaintiffs also prayed that the defendants should be restrained from receiving any sort of offerings inside the water from the pilgrims and the bathers.
(2.) THE plaintiffs alleged that there are three types of Pandas in Allahabad. THE first kind of Pandas are called the "prayagwal Pandas", who are located about 500 yards away from the water. It is alleged that the basic aim of these Pandas is to provide residential facilities to the pilgrims visiting the Sangam. THE second type of Pandas are called the "ghatia Pandas" who are located around two hundred yards from the bathing ghat. It is contended that these Pandas keep their "takhats" on the banks of river and provide a place for the pilgrims to keep their clothes and other belongings. THEse Pandas also provide chandan, rori, mirror, combs and other facilities to the bathers. In return for the aforesaid facilities, the pilgrims give offerings, alms (Dan Dakshina), etc. THE plaintiffs further contended that the third type of Pandas existing at Allahabad are called "gosain Pandas". THEse Pandas keep their "deotai boat"/"godess Boat" in the middle of the water at the Sangam, i. e. , at the confluence of the river Ganga and Yamuna. THEse Pandas provides idols of the God/goddess in their boats at the Sangam point and also provides chandan, rori, mirror, combs and other facilities to the bathers inside the Ganga and Yamuna waters. In return of the facilities provided by these Pandas, the pilgrims/bathers offer them Dakshina, etc. THE plaintiffs alleged that the Mela authorities as well as the District Administration provides licence to the individuals to ply their trade profession or calling in the Mela area. THE petitioners contend that they are Gosain Pandas and have been plying their trade at the Sangam point since long and that their fore father were also plying the same trade/business since time immemorial. Consequently, the plaintiffs contended that not only they have a customary right to provide these facilities to the bathers at the confluence of Ganga and Yamuna river but they also have the exclusive right to carry on this business to the exclusion of any other person including the defendants. The plaintiffs further alleged that there are four types of boats for which the licence is issued by the Mela Administration, namely, the Deotai Nav, the individual boats, the passengers boats and the administration boats. The plaintiffs also contended that a similar dispute arise in the year 1959 which led to the filing of O. S. No. 254 of 1959, which after contest was decreed and the Gosain Pandas were declared to be the persons who had the customary right to carry on the business in Deotai boat inside the river at the Sangam point, namely, at the confluence of the river Ganga and Yamuna. The plaintiffs contended that the defendants have a license for an individual boats and by virtue of holding a licence for an individual ghats, the defendants are interfering in their business of receiving offerings at the Sangam point. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants are carrying on the business of providing chandan, rori, etc. at the Sangam point without having a valid licence and therefore, prayed for a permanent injunction restraining them from carrying on any activity at the Sangam point. The plaintiffs also filed an application for grant of temporary injunction. The defendants contested the aforesaid application alleging that apart from the three types of Pandas, as alleged, by the plaintiffs, the defendants are carrying on the business of chandan, rori inside the river as well as on the land and that they have been carrying on this trade since a long time and that their fore- fathers were also carrying on this business and consequently, the defendants had a customary right to perform such functions and receive the offerings from the pilgrims and bathers. The defendants contended that the Mela administration had issued a licence to them not only to ply individual boats but also to provide chandan, rori, etc. in the individual boat and therefore, the defendants have a right to carry on their trade and calling not only inside the river but also on the Ghat. In support of their case, the defendants have filed copies of the licence given to them by the Mela authorities of various years before the Court below. The trial Court after considering the evidence held that by virtue of the judgment passed in O. S. No. 254 of 1959, the plaintiffs had a customary rights to ply the Deotai boats at the confluence of the river Ganga and Yamuna, namely, at the Sangam point. The trial Court, upon perusing the original receipts, given by the Mela administration, in favour of the defendants concluded that the receipt was issued only for an individual boat and that the words "chandan rori" written separately on the receipt appears to be manipulated and therefore, a forged document. The trial Court, on this basis, disbelieved the receipts of the defendants and concluded that the defendants had no right to ply their trade of chandan and rori at the Sangam point inside the river. Consequently, the trial Court found that a prima facie case existed in favour of the plaintiffs and issued an ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the business and trade of the plaintiffs on the basis of the licence for individual boats granted in favour of the defendants. The defendants, being aggrieved by the injunction order filed a Misc. Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the C. P. C. which was also dismissed. Consequently, the present writ petition.
(3.) THIS Court found that the Mela officer was not arrayed as a party in the suit. Accordingly, the Court, by an order dated 22- 12-2006, directed the petitioner-defendants to file an impleadment application to implead the Mela Officer in the writ petition. Based on the aforesaid direction, the District Magistrate and the Mela Officer were impleaded as respondents in the writ petition. Sri J. K. Khanna, the learned Standing Counsel was directed to receive necessary instructions and by an order of the Court dated 15- 1-2007, the Standing Counsel was directed to produce the-counter foils of the licence issued to the petitioner-defendants of the last five years. Based on the aforesaid direction, the counter foils of the licence were produced before the Court, which the Court has perused. Heard Sri Ajit Kumar, the learned Counsel for the petitioners assisted by Sri Mohit Kumar and Sri H. R. Misra and Sri V. S. Giri for the plaintiff-respondents and Sri J. K. Khanna, the learned Standing Counsel for the District Magistrate and the Mela Adhikari.;