HC flags jurisdictional overreach, suspends Bijnor DM order on Navami fair

He apprised the court that he had submitted a complaint to the Varanasi police commissioner

Prayagraj: Observing that district magistrates cannot act like ‘plenipotentiaries’, the Allahabad high court on Tuesday suspended an order passed by the Bijnor DM concerning the management of the traditional annual ‘Jaahar Diwan’ (Goga Navami) fair, observing that the order was prima facie without jurisdiction and amounted to an apparent usurpation of jurisdiction.

It further noted that the order, though framed as an interim arrangement, involved a sweeping exercise of powers resembling that of a civil court framing a scheme for the management of a trust. The court also permitted the petitioners to hold and organise the fair in Pheona village, Bijnor, subject to obtaining the necessary permission from the authorities.

The present DM’s order dated Aug 29, 2025, handed over the management of the traditional fair to the gram sabha and assigned its revenues to it through a three-member committee of revenue officials. 981 and 997, was decreed in their favour by the second additional civil judge (senior division), Bijnor, on Dec 2, 1997, in an original suit filed in 1982.

A division bench comprising Justice JJ Munir and Justice Vivek Saran said: “We have, time and again, cautioned DMs not to exercise powers as if they are plenipotentiaries in the district, who can pass any kind of order, the jurisdiction whereof may lie with another district-level officer or a judge. Challenging the order, the committee of management of Sarvajanik Arya Inter College and another petitioner moved the high court by filing the present writ petition. The suit, which sought an injunction against interference with the petitioners’ right to organise the fair on plots nos.

Subsequently, it was challenged before the high court. After hearing both sides, the high court noted that the petitioners had earlier instituted a civil suit against the gram sabha and certain rival parties who disputed their right to hold the traditional fair.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *