Prayagraj, Nov 1 The Allahabad High Court has suspended an order passed by the Bijnor district magistrate concerning the management of the annual Goga Naumi fair, saying DMs should not exercise powers as if they are plenipotentiaries who can pass any kind of order.
The court also permitted the petitioners to organise the fair at Pheona village in Bijnor district, subject to obtaining necessary permissions from the authorities.
A bench of Justices J J Munir and Vivek Saran said, “This court has time and again cautioned DMs not to exercise powers as if they are plenipotentiaries who can pass any kind of order, the jurisdiction whereof may lie with another district-level officer or a judge. This is yet another instance of usurpation of jurisdiction, prima facie.”
A plenipotentiary is a person, usually a diplomat, who has been given full power and authority to act, negotiate and sign agreements on behalf of the government without needing to constantly check back for approval.
The district magistrate’s order dated August 29, 2025, handed over the management of the traditional fair to the Gaon Sabha, and assigned its revenues to it through a three-member committee of revenue officials.
Challenging the order, the management committee, Sarvajanik Arya Inter College and another, moved the high court with a writ petition.
After hearing both sides, the bench noted that the petitioners had earlier instituted a civil suit against the Gaon Sabha and certain rival parties, which disputed their right to hold the traditional fair.
The suit, which sought an injunction against interference with the petitioners' right to organise the fair on plots No. 981 and 997, was decreed in their favour by the second additional civil court, in the original suit of 1982.
The high court observed that the DM's order runs in the teeth of the decree of the civil court in favour of the petitioner and against the Gaon Sabha, among others.
It also 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.
In this backdrop, the high court held that the order was prima facie without jurisdiction or authority of law.
In its order dated October 27, the court admitted the writ petition and granted two weeks to the state respondents to file their counter-affidavit.
The notice was issued to private respondents, fixing November 17 as the next date of hearing.
