JUDGMENT M.L. Chaturvedi, J. - This is a petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The 16 Petitioners are owners of shops and other commercial establishments in the town of Khurja, district Bulandshahr. They are also employers within the meaning of the word as used in Section 2(6) of the UP Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1947 thereinafter called the Act). The provisions of the Act were extended to the town of Khurja by a notification published in the UP Gazette dated 15-6-1955. As a result of this notification all the employers were required to choose one day in the week on which they would close their shops or commercial establishments. The Petitioners chose Tuesday as the day on which they would like to close their shops every week. They communicated their choice of the day and the papers were put up before the District Magistrate, who is the person authorised to approve of the choice under the Act. It appears that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate also submitted a report saying that Tuesday may be fixed as the weekly closing day for the shops and commercial establishments for Khurja town. On this report the District Magistrate passed an order on 17-6-1955 saying, "yes" to the suggestions contained in the report. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate then informed the Tahsildar, Khurja, that Tuesday had been declared as weekly closing day for Khurja for all the traders. After the District Magistrate's order, the representatives of the Grain and Ghee Mandis shop keepers submitted a petition and they expressed their choice of the close day for Sunday in every week. On the second representation being made, the District Magistrate had no objection to Sunday being declared as the close day u/s 10 of the Act. Another representation was then made to the District Magistrate and some shop keepers insisted on having Tuesday as the close day. The District Magistrate accordingly wrote to the sub-Divisional Magistrate on 3-7-1955 that the District Magistrate could not legally fix a day, which was to be observed as the close day, and he could only approve of the proposal of the shop keepers to have a particular day as the close day. He further said that, if the majority of shop keepers in any particular Bazar or market, wanted to close their shops on some day other than Sunday, the District Magistrate would have no objection. He further said that, if the majority of shop keepers in any particular Bazar or market, wanted to close their shops on some day other than Sunday, the District Magistrate would have no objection. In order to find out the majority opinion, votes in writing were taken on 7-7-1956 from the shop keepers of different Mohallas of Khurja town. The result of this voting is given in paragraph No. 6 of the counter-affidavit and the contents of that paragraph show that in every single Mohalla the majority of the shop keepers preferred Sunday to be declared as the close day. In the order dated 27-7-1955 the District Magistrate had declared Sunday to be the close day and, in view of the votes taken, there was no reason to alter the day. The present petition was then filed on 5-9-1955 praying that the order of the District Magistrate dated 27-6-1955, declaring Sunday to be the close day, be quashed. 3. The facts given above are not disputed and the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has urged two points in support of this petition. His first submission is that it is primarily for the shop keepers to select the day in the week on which they would like to close their shops, and the Petitioners having selected Tuesday as the day and that having been approved by the District Magistrate, the Petitioners are entitled to close their shops on Tuesday. It is said that the District Magistrate has no jurisdiction to impose a different day upon them. The other point is that the Petitioners have no right to alter the day during the course of the calendar year and they now cannot give a different choice to the District Magistrate. They, therefore, are entitled to close their shops on Tuesdays instead of on Sundays. The other point is that the Petitioners have no right to alter the day during the course of the calendar year and they now cannot give a different choice to the District Magistrate. They, therefore, are entitled to close their shops on Tuesdays instead of on Sundays. In order to appreciate the argument I may quote Section 10 of the Act, which is as follows: 10(1) Every employer shall close his shop or commercial establishment not included in the schedule, on one day of the week and such day shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the close day.' (2) Except as provided in the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, or any other enactment applying to a shop or a commercial establishment, the choice of a close day shall subject to the approval of such authority as may be appointed in this behalf, rest with the employer, and shall be specified by him in a notice permanently exhibited in a conspicuous place in the shop or commercial establishment: Provided that where a close day is prescribed in or under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, or other enactment applying to a shop or commercial establishment, such day shall be specified in the notice above referred to. (3) The close day specified "under Sub-section (2) shall not be altered by the employer except once in a year and am alteration shall take effect only as from first January in any year and shall be subject to the approval of such authority as may be appointed u/s 10 (2): Provided that the employer shall by affixing a notice in a conspicuous place in the shop or commercial establishment not later than December 15 next preceding give previous intimation of his intention so to alter the close day. 4. A reading of the above section shows that the employers, not mentioned in the schedule, are enjoined to close their shops or commercial establishments on one day of the week and this day is to be called 'the close day.' The choice of the day rests with the employer but that choice has been made subject to the approval of an authority in this behalf, which in this case is the District Magistrate of Bulandshahr. After the choice has been given by the employer and it has been approved of by the authority, the employer has no more any right to alter the choice of the day in the course of the calendar year, and any alteration that he wishes to make must take effect from the 1st January of the next year. It is possible under the provisions of this section for the District Magistrate or the appointed authority to approve of different days for different employers, and the close days may be different for different shops and commercial establishments, situate even in the same area or Mohalla. The choice has been given only to the employer, but this choice having been subject to approval, it is open to a District Magistrate to say that he would approve of the same close day being observed for a particular area or Mohalla, because of administrative considerations. If different close days are approved of by the District Magistrate for the same area, difficulties may arise in trying to keep a check on the different employers authorised to close their shops on different days. For this reason, it appears that the choice of the close day has been made subject to the approval of the District Magistrate. If the District Magistrate thinks that providing for different close days for different shops for the same area would cause administrative difficulties and may lead to breach of the law, laid down in the section, it is open to him to approve of a particular day as the close day, which is to be observed. 5. In the instant case, the District Magistrate accepted first the Petitioners' choice of Tuesday as the close day, but on a representation being made by others, he altered the day to Sunday. His previous order dated 17-6-1955, approving the report of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, that Tuesday may be fixed as the close day for Khurja town, was obviously wrong. The District Magistrate has no power under the Act to fix any particular day as the close day and his power is confined to the approval of a day, which is chosen by the shop keeper or shop keepers. The District Magistrate has no power under the Act to fix any particular day as the close day and his power is confined to the approval of a day, which is chosen by the shop keeper or shop keepers. It was legally possible for the District Magistrate to have approved Tuesday as the close day for the Petitioners , but he could not pass any order directing the other shop keepers in Khurja town also to close their shops on Tuesday. He can only accord or withhold his approval, but he cannot issue any order to any shop keeper to close his shop on any particular day. By the order dated 17-6-1955, the District Magistrate chose Tuesday as the close day for Khurja town and this was obviously an illegal order. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners has argued that the order was legal so far as the Petitioners are concerned. But the District Magistrate was wrong in declaring a close day for the entire town and he passed that order under some misapprehension about the wishes of the Shop-keeper in general. He subsequently set aside this order and, the order having been passed under a misapprehension, it was open to the District Magistrate to correct it. If the District Magistrate had decided on 17-6-1955 that he would fix different close days for different shop keepers in Khurja town, it might have been said that he accepted the Petitioners' suggestion and the Petitioners were thus accorded a valid approval. But the order of the District Magistrate clearly shows that he was contemplating to fix only Tuesday as the close day for all the shop keepers in the town. He never contemplated different days for different shop keepers. This order, therefore, cannot be interpreted to mean that he accorded permission only to the Petitioners for closing their shops on Tuesday. Ten days later he approved of Sunday as the close day, and then under his directions votes were taken and the majority in each Mohalla was in favour of Sunday as being observed as the close day. He. therefore, did not alter his decision to approve Sunday as the close day for all the shop keepers of the entire town. In fairness to him it must be said that he was aware of the correct legal position on 3-7-1955. 6. He. therefore, did not alter his decision to approve Sunday as the close day for all the shop keepers of the entire town. In fairness to him it must be said that he was aware of the correct legal position on 3-7-1955. 6. It is true that the choice of the day lies with the shop keeper, but the District Magistrate, for administrative reason, may not approve of the choice for different days in the same area, and the power of approval having been vested in him, it is open to him to approve of any particular day as being the close day for the particular area. Even if some shop keepers are not satisfied with that day. I think they would have still to choose that very day as the day for closing the shops because under Sub-section (1) of Section 10 they are (sic) to close the shop on at least one day in the week and that it must be the day which has been approved by the District Magistrate. 7. The next argument is that the Petitioners now cannot give their choice for Sunday, because they are no entitled to change the close day in the course of the calendar year. I do not think that Sub-section (3) really has that effect. Sub-section (3) will apply one if there is a close day specified Under Sub-section (2) and a close day specified under Sub-section (2) is the day which has been approved by the District Magistrate. No prohibition is imposed on the District Magistrate to alter his approval of the day on which the hops are to be closed, and if the District Magistrate once withdraws his approval, already given previously, the result would be that there would be no more any close day specified under Sub-section (2), and the condition precedent to the applicability of Sub-section (3) is that there should be a close day so specified. The District Magistrate having withdrawn his approval to Tuesday being the close day for the Petitioners, the Petitioners having no close day, as specified in Sub-section (2), and under Sub-section (1) they are bound to close the shop on one day in the week. It is, therefore, open to them now to make their choice of a close day, and the provisions of Section 10(3) will not stand in their way of making the choice. 8. It is, therefore, open to them now to make their choice of a close day, and the provisions of Section 10(3) will not stand in their way of making the choice. 8. A learned Judge of this Court has held in the case of Ghulam Husain v. State 1950 A.L.J. 255, that the District Magistrate has no rights to fix any day as the close day arbitrarily and all that he could do is to with hold his approval of the choice of the day, given by the shop keeper. I respectfully agree with the decision of the learned Judge and I have already stated that it is not open to the District Magistrate to fix any close day himself. He can only approve of the choice of a close day, given by the shop keeper, and that approval can be given after taking administrative matters into consideration. 9. The result is that this petition fails and is dismissed, but the parties will bear their own costs.