Patna High Court
Mahadeo Singh vs Emperor on 20 July, 1922
Equivalent citations: 81IND. CAS.49, AIR 1922 PATNA 494
JUDGMENT Coutts, J.
1. This is an application for transfer of a case from the District of Champaran. The petitioner, who is the Officiating Manager of the Ramnagar Raj, is being tried on a charge of wrongful confinement by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Bettiah.
2. It appears that the Bhasurari factory was the lessee and mortgagee of a certain property from the Ramnagar Raj. The proprietor Mr. Coffin had died and the factory was being, as it had been for several years, managed by Mr. Bond. Sometime in the beginning of this year the Manager of the Ramnagar Raj, Mr. Aldis, was dismissed by the Rani and the petitioner, who had been the Assistant Manager, was appointed to officiate as Manager. After his appointment he issued parwanas to the tenants of certain of the villages which had been leased to the factory telling them not to pay rent to Mr. Bond, the pretext being that the Rajwas protecting the interests of the late Mr. Coffin's heirs. Mr. Bond brought the matter to the notice of Mr. Swanzy, the Collector, who wrote to the petitioner requesting him to withdraw the parwanas which after consulting the Government Pleader he considered to be illegal. The petitioner refused to withdraw the parwanas. Subsequently the case for which the petitioner is now being tried was started against him. He was arrested and he complains that he was badly treated while being taken to Bettiah and that there was delay on the part of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in granting him bail.
3. We are not concerned with the treatment of the petitioner after his arrest because this admittedly had nothing to do with the District Magistrate and Mr. Gour Chandra Pal, who has very strenuously pressed for a transfer of the case from the district, says that if he cannot have atransfer from the district, the petitioner prefers to be tried by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Bettiah.
4. We are, therefore, only concerned with the question, whether the petitioner has reasonable grounds for believing that the District Magistrate is prejudiced against him. It appears that before Mr. Swanzy wrote to the petitioner to withdraw the parwanas, his predecessor Mr. Merriman wrote to the Rani and asked her under what circumstances Mr. Aldis had been dismissed and also who the new Manager was and what his qualifications were. No reply was given to these questions and the first ground on which it is contended that the District Magistrate is prejudiced is that the fact, that Mr. Merriman asked for this information, shows that he was annoyed about the dismissal of Mr. Aldis and the appointment of the petitioner in his place. The second ground which is urged is that the refusal of the petitioner to withdraw the parwanas must also have annoyed the Collector; and the fast ground is that Mr. Aldis informed the petitioner that the Magistrate was very angry with him.
5. So far as the first ground is concerned it is urged that the Collector had no right to ask the Rani why she had dismissed Mr. Aldis and what the qualifications of the new Manager were, and that this indicates that he must have been annoyed at the dismissal of Mr. Aldis and the appointment of the petitioner. I am unable to take this view. In the first place the enquiry was made by Mr. Merriman who is not now the Magistrate and Collector of Champaran and in the second place, although it may be that the Collector has no right to demand a reply to the questions such as were asked, as Magistrate of the District, he was interested in the management of a property like the Ramnagar Raj from the point of view of the peace of the district alone. The enquiry was couched in a perfectly courteous way and it indicates nothing more than a desire to have information which he thought he might probably require. It in no way suggests that he was annoyed with the dismissal of Mr. Aldis or that he desired to interfere in the appointment of his successor. This matter, therefore, could not, in my opinion create any reasonable apprehension of the bias.
6. In regard to the second ground: the parwanas certainly appear to have been illegal, the Magistrate foresaw that the direction to tenants not to pay rent would probably lead to some breach of the peace; so, after consulting the Government Pleader, instead, of starting proceeding under Section 107 of the. Criminal Procedure Code as he was entitled to do, he adopted milder and politer method and asked the petitioner to withdraw the parwanas. In so doing far from showing bias against the petitioner he showed considerable consideration and Mr. Swanzy himself says that he was not angry with the petitioner when he refused to withdraw the parwanas. Nor was there any reason why he should be angry because he should always have recourse to Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The fact that he did not do so even after the refusal to withdraw the parwanas indicates that he was not actuated by anger but still desired to settle matters without a criminal proceeding.
7. The last ground has not been seriously pressed. The District Magistrate says lie does not know Mr. Aldis and has never seen him and that if Mr. Aldis did in fact assert that the Magistrate was angry with the petitioner, it is an assertion which is untrue. I am not prepared, however, to believe that in fact Mr. Aldis did make such an assertion.
8. In the result then I am unable to And that the petitioner has any reasonable ground for the application which has been made and I would dismiss it.
9. Das, J.--I entirely agree. It has been argued before us, and argued with some zeal and passion, that Mr. Merriman had no business to address the proprietress of the Ramnagar Raj with reference to the dismissal of Mr. Aldis, and it has been suggested that the prosecution of the petitioner is the direct result of the refusal on the part of the Rani to reinstate Mr. Aldis. I quite agree that, as a general rule, the Collectors should not interfere in the internal management of a zemindari; but I am not prepared to admit that the general rule is subject to no exception whatever, nor am I prepared to admit that, in this particular case. Mr. Merriman was guilty of a breach of the general rule. The zemindari system in this country is a complicated one, and where large and conflicting interests are concerned, it is impossible for the Magistrates charged with the duty of maintaining peace and order in the district not to intervene at times especially when as a result of some act on the part of any of the conflicting parties, the breach of the peace seems imminent. What are the facts in this particular case? The Raj had issued certain parwanas to the tenants of some of the villages by which they were asked not to pay rent to the tenure-holder, who undoubtedly was entitled to collect rent from the tenants. The parwanas were wholly and palpably iMegal and it was necessary for Mr. Merriman to know tfee name of persons, to whom he could acrdress his letters in reference to the illegal parwanas that had been issued by the Raj. The second part of the letter runs as follows: "There is another matter on which I should be glad to have an early information, viz., the stoppage of rents in Baswaris factory dehat. I have addressed a letter to the Managar on the subject. In the event of no regular managar being appointed, I would be obliged if you will favour me by having the matter dealt with". In my opinion there was nothing improper on the part of the Mr. Merriman, in the circumstances of the case, to address a perfectly courteous letter to the proprietress of the Raj asking her whether it was true that Mr. Aldis had been dismissed; and, if so, on what ground. In the next place Mr. Merriman is not the Magistrate of the district and if Mr. Merriman had any grievance against the proprietress of the Ramnagar Raj for having dismissed Mr. Aldis, we cannot assume that that grievance is entertained by his successor. The present Magistrate and Collector of the district is Mr. Swanzy and he certainly has taken no steps whatever against the Raj in reference to the dismissal of Mr. Aldis. If I were satisfied that the Magistrate of the district has put any undue pressure on the Raj to remove the present Manager from his office and to reinstate Mr. Aldis, I would certainly accede to the argument which has been advanced before us. But there is nothing at all in the record to show that having addressed the letter of the 16th of March 1922, the Magistrate of the district put any pressure whatever upon the Rani to re-appoint Mr. Aldis.
10. The socond ground which has been urged before us is, in my opinion, wholly untenable. It is urged that the Magistrate of the district should not have asked the petitioner to withdraw certain parwanas which he had issued. I am wholly unable to accept this argument. These parwanas were undoubtedly illegal in so far as they invited the tenants not to pay rent to the factory. It is not suggested either in the petition or anywhere in the record that on the death of Mr. Coffin, the landlord was entitled to re-enter upon the land. That is not the argument before us. The argument is that upon the death of Mr. Coffin his heirs were entitled to recover rent from the tenants and that the Manager who was in charge of the estate had no business to collect the rent unless he satisfied the Raj that the power of attorney authorized him to collect reiit on behalf of the heirs of Mr. Coffin. Whether the Manager was or was not entitled to collect rent is a matter between the heirs of Mr. Coffin and the tenants. With this question the Raj had nothing whatever to do.
11. In my opinion the attitude of the Magistrate was an entirely proper one, in so far as, instead of taking any action against the Raj, as he was entitled to do if there was any apprehension of the breach of the peace, he required the Raj to withdraw the illegal parwanas that had been issued by the Raj; and I may point out that in addressing the letter of the 16th of March 1922 to the Raj, the learned Magistrate was armed with the opinion of the Government Pleader of the district. In my opinion there are no grounds for transfer in this case.