K.S. HEGDE, J.- 1.The appellant's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the legality of the order passed by the District Magistrate, Delhi having been summarily dismissed by the High Court of Delhi, he has brought this appeal after obtaining special leave from this Court.
2. The appellant claims to be the sole agent of the Indian Railways for the Subzimandi Zone of Delhi. As per his contract with the Railways, he is entrusted with the duty of receiving goods and parcels at his office from various consignors and transmitting the same by train to consignees to all parts of the country. Likewise, all goods and parcels received at various Delhi Stations for delivering to consignees residing or having their offices or places of business within Subzimandi Zone have to be taken delivery of by him and distributed to the consignees through his office. His further case is that for that purpose, the railways had granted him in 1961 lease of a plot of land measuring more than 500 sq yards situate at main chowk, â€˜Barafkhanaâ€™, Subzimandi, Delhi for the construction of his office and godowns. He claims that he had put up a building on that plot of land costing about 2Â½ lakhs of rupees. He also claims to own large number of trucks for the purpose of carrying on his business.
3. His complaint is that the impugned order forbids the movement of all motor trucks to and from his office and godown, practically throughout the day. This order, according to him, if sustained would completely stop his business and thereby infringe his fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. He also urges that the order in question is not authorised by law.
4. The allegations made in the petition make out a prima facie case in support of the relief asked for by the appellant. Therefore the High Court should have enquired into the allegations made by him to ascertain whether the impugned order was made in accordance with law and further whether the same contravenes the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g). If the allegations made by the appellant in his petition are correct then it is for the State to satisfy the court that the restrictions imposed are reasonable restrictions in the interest of the general public. We are of the opinion that the High Court should not have dismissed summarily the petition of the appellant.
5. In this Court a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents justifying the impugned order. The plea raised by the respondents requires investigation. That should be appropriately done by the High Court. Hence we allow this appeal, set aside the order made by the High Court dismissing the writ petition of the appellant and remit the case to the High Court for disposal according to law. We think this is a fit case where we should continue the stay granted by this Court on August 6, 1969, for a period of one month from today in order to facilitate the appellant to move the High Court for obtaining appropriate orders. The costs of this appeal shall abide the result of the case.