Saligram Singh and Others vs Baijnath Singh

Mohammad Noor, J.—In this application the Court is invited to set aside an order passed by the Subdivisional Magistrate of Arrah prohibiting the petitioners from holding their hat on the same day on which the hat of Baijnath Singh, the opposite party, is being held. The order was passed on 25th March 1931 and the petitioner''s application to the District Magistrate for rescinding that order was rejected on 20th April 1931. The statutory period of two months expired on 25th May 1931. My learned brother Rowland, J., however issued this rule on 26th June, presumably to examine the legality or otherwise of the order.

It is said that the opposite party Baijnath Singh had been holding a hat in village Chilhlia, police station Sahar, for some time; he filed a petition before the Sub-divisional Magistrate complaining that the petitioners Saligram Singh and others were trying to hold a rival hat on the same day on which the former''s hat was held and that this was likely to cause a breach of the peace. The police enquired into the matter and reported for no action against Saligram Singh and others, the petitioners here, as the hat-waris (traders) made no complaint against them.

It was however suggested that the opposite party Baijnath Singh should be asked to change the day of his hat. This was to avoid future trouble. The Sub-Inspector learnt from the Banias (grocers) that Saligram''s hat was more than three years old while that of the opposite party Baijnath Singh''s was two or three years old. Baijnath Singh filed a protest petition challenging the police report. The Divisional Inspector was then ordered to investigate into the age of the hats. He reported that Baijnath''s hat was three years old while Saligram''s hat was of a recent date. On this the learned Sub-Divisional Officer heard the parties and passed the order stated above, namely that the petitioners were prohibited from holding their hat on the same day on which the opposite party Baijnath Singh had been holding his.

No doubt the learned Magistrate had full jurisdiction and power to pass the order complained of; but, in my opinion, the order which is more or less of a permanent nature was unjustified under the circumstances of the case. In the case of Benowari Lal Ram and Others Vs. Pronab Krishna Majumdar and Others, it was laid down

that every person is ordinarily entitled to exercise all rights of ownership on his own property, and the holding of a hat on One''s property is not in itself a wrongful act. The criminal Court assumes jurisdiction to interfere-with the lawful exercise of a person''s right to ownership when such exercise in its ulterior consequences and being directed primarily against the lawful exercise of another person''s right of ownership is likely to cause a breach of the peace.

In the case of Rakhal Das Singh v. Emperor (1912) CriLJ 511 it was held that

holding of a hat on one''s own property is not in itself a wrongful act and therefore any ulterior consequences which may arise from it cannot give rise to any proceeding against the owner of land for committing an act likely to cause a breach of the peace unless those ulterior consequences are made the basis of the proceedings.

Similar views have been expressed in the case of Brojo Nath Ghose v. Empress (1900) 4 CWN 226. In this case it appears that the learned Magistrate considers the holding of the hat in close proximity of a rival hat is by itself a ground for the likelihood of a breach of the peace and for passing the order. This is not so. In this case the petitioners were holding their hat on their own land which they were perfectly entitled to do and it was by itself not a wrongful act. Competition in trade unless illegal methods are adopted is not a wrongful act. When a rival business is started in close proximity of a previously established business, the person interested in the latter is bound to object to the former, and some sort of strained feeling is inevitable. For instance, if a man has a shop of a particular commodity in a village and has a monopoly of it, he will certainly resent if another shop of the same commodity is opened in that village and thereby the monopoly of the former is invaded. But that by itself will be no ground for restraining a newcomer from carrying on his trade unless he is doing or is likely to do any wrongful act and likely to lead to a breach of the peace. If one or both rivals are committing wrongful acts, the best course will be to bind down the wrong-doer u/s 107, Criminal P.C.

This was pointed out in the case of Satish Chandra Roy v. Emperor (1906) 11 CWN 79. As I have said, the petitioner in this case is within his rights in holding a hat on his own land even on the day on which the rival hat of the opposite party was being held as long as he does not resort to any wrongful act leading to a breach of the peace. In this case no wrongful act of the petitioner has been alleged or found. The order is set aside.