Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Mani Lal Barik vs State Of Bihar . on 28 September, 2015
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice, Amitava Roy
1
IN THE SUPREME CUORT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8207/2015
(ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) 19652/2015)
Mani Lal Barik & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
State of Bihar & Ors. ...Respondents
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellants, who are the residents of Gaya, Bihar had approached the High Court of Judicature at Patna, being aggrieved by the notice inviting tender dated 20.08.2012 for the purpose of realization of Service Fee from passenger vehicles contrary to Section 13 of the Bihar and Orissa Places of Pilgrimage Act, 1920 (for short Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by hereinafter referred to as Act).
NEETU KHAJURIADate: 2015.10.10 11:05:57 IST Reason: 2
3. This was in the wake of the impending convergence of pilgrims at Gaya, during Pitru Paksha Festival and other annual religious rituals. The appellants, however, did not challenge the vires of the Act.
4. In the counter affidavit, filed by the respondents, levy of Service Fee during the festive seasons was admitted to be deposited under the “Lodging House Fund” mandated by the statute to be used for the benefit of the pilgrims.
5. The HC by the impugned decision, after traversing the provisions of the Act, disposed of the Writ Petition with the following directions:
(i) “The Respondents shall not levy any tax or fee from the pilgrims who visit Gaya during Pitru Paksha or any other season except the parking fee for the vehicles, at a reasonable amount.
(ii) The State of Bihar shall not enforce the provisions of the Bihar & Orissa Places of Pilgrimage Act, 1920 and it shall be open to it to enact law on the subject of creation of facilities for pilgrims or for the welfare measure to be taken during festival occasion of various communities.
(iii) The State Government, through the Bihar State Board of Religious Trust shall appoint a committee under Section 22 of the Hindu Religious Act, 1950 for undertaking various 3 activities for and on behalf of the Board at Gaya within two months from today.
(iv) The members of the committee to be constituted shall comprise of religious persons and service minded traders and to the extent possible, inclusion of politicians, shall be avoided.
(v) The committee shall examine and prepare a plan for provision of facilities for free flow of the pilgrims who visit Vishnupath Temple at Gaya, and arrange for the Rituals either during Pitru Paksha or other times, in a systematic way.
(vi) The amount collected towards service fee during the years 2012, 2013, and 2014 shall be made over to the committee for being spend, to create facilities; and the Board shall maintain a true and proper account of the expenditure and get it audited from time to time.”
6. Being aggrieved, the appellants have assailed this verdict chiefly on the ground that as the constitutionality of the Act had not been questioned by them in the Writ Petition, the directions inter alia to the respondents for not enforcing the provisions thereof and leaving them at liberty to enact a law for creating facilities for pilgrims and for devising other welfare measures to be taken during the festival were untenable apart from being inessential thus 4 entailing dismissal of the Writ Petition for all practical purposes. According to them, all other incidental directions, contained in the impugned decision are to the same effect.
7. The respondents in their counter affidavit before this Court, have substantially endorsed the assailment of the impugned decision on identical lines. Apart from contending that the reliefs granted thereby had not been prayed for by the appellants, they have asserted that the Act had been enacted for the purpose of better control and sanitation of places of pilgrimage and for regulation of the houses in which pilgrims are accommodated. They have averred that the statute is the sole legislation which takes care of the lodging and sanitation of the pilgrims who visit Gaya for religious purposes particularly during the Pitru Paksha Mela as well as Ganga Sagar Mela. Reference has been made to Section 20 of the Act, which contemplates the constitution of a Lodging House Committee (for short hereinafter referred to as Committee) to provide facilities to 5 the pilgrims of the various parts of the country throughout the year, and more particularly during the above festivals.
8. The respondents have claimed that full precaution and care is being taken for cleanliness, sanitation and other facilities in the congregation area, so as to ensure against the contraction or spreading of any disease. In addition, facilities are provided to the pilgrims to secure their comfort during their stay. The respondents have asserted that huge amount is being spent on these counts. According to them, to meet these expenses since the year 2000 the Committee used to levy Service Fee. However, in view of the Order dated 21.09.2012 passed in the Writ Petition, such collection has been stopped. The respondents have contended as well, that in view of the impugned ruling, the Committee has been rendered unable to take any decision vis-à-vis these essential initiatives qua the impending Pitru Paksha Mela, commencing from 28.09.2015.
9. Heard, Ms. Asha Jain Madan, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Abhinav Mukherjee, learned counsel for 6 respondents who have abided by the respective pleaded stands adverted to hereinabove.
10. Noticeably, the assertions of the respondents have not been refuted by the appellants. Evidently, the directions vide the impugned decision do supersede the Act, the vires whereof has not been the impugned as has been asserted by the parties in unison. That the impugned verdict, has the impact of creating a stalemate and a state of uncertainty in the face of the impending religious festivals has been jointly contended.
11. In the above admitted factual premise and having regard to the materials available, we are of the view that the impugned decision ought to be interfered, with which we accordingly do. We make it clear, that we have not offered any comment on the validity or the otherwise of the Act or any provision thereof. In our opinion, as the constitutionality thereof had not been questioned, the High Court ought not to have dwelt upon that issue.
12. The appeal is thus allowed in the above terms. It would be the obligation of the respondents to take 7 necessary steps to ensure that all reasonable facilities are provided to the pilgrims as contemplated in law in course of the Pitru Paksha Mela and other rituals and also to maintain law and order in connection therewith. However, no realization would be made in this regard otherwise as is contemplated and or sanctioned by law. No costs.
………………………CJI.
H. L. DATTU .………………………...J. AMITAVA ROY NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 28, 2015.
8
ITEM NO.45 COURT NO.1 SECTION XVI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.19652/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11/03/2015 in CWJC No. 16187/2012 passed by the High Court of Patna) MANI LAL BARIK & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. Respondent(s) (with interim relief and office report) Date : 28/09/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY For Petitioner(s) Ms. Asha Jain Madan,Adv.
Mr. Mukesh Jain, Adv.
Ms. Madhu Talvar, adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Abhinav Mukerji,Adv.
Ms. Bihu Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Purnima Krishna, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
In view of the above, pending application, if any, stand disposed of.
(Neetu Khajuria) (Vinod Kulvi)
Sr.P.A. Assistant Registrar
(Signed order is placed on the file.)