Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The exercise of the powers conferred by the license involved the fixing of poles in and the placing of electric supply lines over, along or across the streets of Amroha and accordingly in view of the provisions of Sections 18 and 18, Electricity Act, Messrs. Martin & Co., defendant 3, the managing agents of defendant 4, prepared a scheme of the methods of construction proposed to be adopted and submitted the same for approval to the Municipal Board of Amroha, defendant 1, and to the Local Government. The proposal embodied in the scheme was to carry electric supply lines over the streets of Amroha at a minimum height of 20 feet from the ground. The Municipal Hoard of Amroha does not appear to have expressly communicated either its approval or disapproval of the proposed scheme, but the Local Government approved of the methods of construction proposed to be adopted by defendant 4.

4. It appears that from the very outset the plaintiffs and other Shia Mahomedans of Amroha made representations to the Local (Government, the District Magistrate and tho Municipal Board of Amroha emphasizing the desirability of placing electric supply lines, mains, etc., at such a height as to allow free passage to the tazias on 10th of Moharram. No heed was however paid to those representations and defendant 4, with the approval of Mr. Shirreff, the then District Magistrate of Moradabad, proceeded to place transmission lines along and across the streets of Amroha in accordance with the original proposed methods of construction. These facts are evidenced by a letter dated 25th January 1930 written by Mr. Shirreff to Mr. Gulick, the Resident Engineer of defendant 3. The letter is printed at p. 55 of the record and makes specific mention of "the question of tazia routes." In the letter it is stated that Mr. Shirreff was consulted throughout as to the position of the lines in Amroha and that he had used his influence to get the approval of the Municipal Board of Amroha as to the position of the lines "in spite of tazia difficulties." The letter goes on to say that I (Mr. Shirrefi) had first, of course, considered whether tazia routes could be left clear of wires or whether the wires could be taken underground or at a sufficient height to satisfy all the taziadars and I had decided that none of these things could be done, and that the tazias would inevitably have to conform to the wires and be of a reasonable height if not more than 20 feet,

6. It is admitted that some of the tazias in Amroha have a permanent structure of wood and the height of one of them is 22 feet 6 inches. These tazias are taken out in procession on 10th Moharram. They are carried by kahars on their shoulders and the height of one of the tazias when so carried is 27 feet from the ground. It is not denied that the fixing of electric wires at a height of 20 feet from the ground interferes with the passage of some of the tazias in Amroha.

7. The plaintiffs accordingly filed the suit giving rise to the present appeal and they based their right to the reliefs mentioned at the inception of this judgment on a "general custom and practice" to take out in procession on 10th Moharam tazias of varying heights in the streets of Amroha and alleged that the action of the defendants in fixing electric wires at a height of 20 foot from the ground interfered with the passage of some of the tazias. Apart from the defendants mentioned above, the plaintiffs also impleaded the Secretary of State for India in Council as defendant 2 in the suit. All the defendants contested the suit. They denied the existence of a custom entitling the Shia Mahomedans to take out in procession tazias up to the maximum height of 27 feet and contended that the right to take out in procession a tazia of a fixed height is not enforceable at law. They maintained that the taking out of tazias in procession was not obligatory on the Shias and it was even permissible under the Shia religion to reduce the height of the tazias. On these grounds they urged that the plaintiffs were not entitled to a decree directing the defendants to raise the height of the electric wires so as to allow free passage to the tazias.

16. What constitutes an "appropriate observance" with reference to a particular religious procession is necessarily a question of fact and the answer to the question must depend on the proved facts and circum stances of each particular case. In deciding the question particular regard must be had to the practice prevailing in a particulars locality and it is impossible to lay down an inflexible rule of universal application as to the height of tazias. It has been established in the present case that the practice of carrying tazias of particular heights in the streets of Amroha has been in vogue for a long number of years and the practice has been acquiesced in by all concerned for a reasonably long period of time to warrant the inference that a usage to that effect exists in the town of Amroha. Apart from this, the practice is not confined to the town of Amroha alone. It is a matter of common knowledge that tazias of much greater height than 20 feet are taken out Jin procession in various towns in this province. There is thus no escape from the conclusion that the carrying of tazias of more than 20 feet in height is an "appropriate observance" connected with the religious processions of Shias on 10th Moharram in the town of Amroha. It follows that subject to such rights as defendant 4 may have as a licensee, the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree in terms of the decree granted by their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in Manzur Hasan v. Muhammad Zaman (1925) 12 A.I.R. P.C. 36.