Delhi High Court
Bhabajiban Bhattacharya And Ors vs Mcd And Ors on 27 September, 2011
Author: Hima Kohli
Bench: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6657/2011, CMs 13464/2011, 15988/2011,
16283/2011 and 16284/2011.
Decided on 27.09.2011
IN THE MATTER OF :
BHABAJIBAN BHATTACHARYA AND ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Kulbharat, Advocate with
Mr. Rohit Madan, Advocate
versus
MCD AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Mansi Gupta, Advocate for R-1 and
R-3/MCD with Mr. Alok Singh, Dy. Director
(Horticulture), MCD, Central Zone, Delhi.
Mr. Shoaib Haider, Advocate with Mr. Najmi
Waziri, Standing Counsel (Civil), GNCTD.
Mr. Joy Dip Bhattacharya, Advocate for R-4.
Mr. P.K. Maitra, Advocate for applicant in CMs
16283-16284/2011.
CORAM
* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may
be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be
reported in the Digest?
HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners praying inter alia for directions to respondents No.1 and 3/MCD to not grant permission to any Samiti or person for performing any Puja or any other function at the K- W.P.(C) 6657/2011 Page 1 of 5 Block Main Park (behind Purboshree Mahila Samiti), C.R. Park, New Delhi.
2. Counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners are residents of K-Block, C.R. Park, New Delhi, and have approached this Court for seeking restraint orders against respondents No.1 and 3/MCD in view of their apprehension that the respondent/MCD is in the process of granting permission to respondent No.4, Chittaranjan Park Milan Samiti to conduct Durga Puja in a park situated in K-Block, which has been developed by the Residents Welfare Association (RWA) of the area by executing a MOU with the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, whereafter grants-in-aid were granted by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi to the RWA for meeting the expenses incurred for maintaining and developing the park. He submits that after much effort, the said park has been developed by the RWA as an ornamental park and is now being put to use by the residents of the area for recreational purposes. However, as per the petitioners, respondents No.1 and 3/MCD are seeking to destroy the beauty of the said park by granting permission to respondent No.4 to perform Durga Puja, Kali Puja and Saraswati Puja by holding the said functions in the park and thus damaging the plants and saplings that have been planted in the park so painstakingly.
3. Notice was issued on the present petition vide order dated 14.09.2011, while directing that till the next date of hearing, respondents No.1 and 3/MCD would ensure that no party is permitted to use the subject park for any public/private function. Pursuant to the aforesaid W.P.(C) 6657/2011 Page 2 of 5 notice, appearance is entered on behalf of respondent No.4, Chittaranjan Park Milan Samiti. Counsel for respondents No.1 and 3/MCD, who was present on the last date of hearing, states on instructions from Mr. Alok Singh, Dy. Director (Hort.), MCD, Central Zone, New Delhi, that prior to the last date of hearing, i.e., prior to 14.9.2011, an office order dated 12.09.2011 was issued by the Dy. Director (Hort.), MCD, Central Zone, granting permission to respondent No.4 to perform Puja in the playground area of the subject park, which comprises of 1/4th of the entire area of the park. In support of the aforesaid submission, she hands over a copy of the office order dated 12.09.2011, which is taken on record. A perusal of the said office order shows that certain conditions have been imposed on respondent No.4 as to the manner in which the arrangement for the Puja may be made in the playground area of the park, apart from imposing routine conditions for booking of such parks.
4. On a pointed query posed to the counsel for respondents No.1 and 3/MCD as to whether the park in question is a park specifically notified for the purposes of booking in terms of the circulars issued by MCD in that regard, the answer is in the negative. She justifies the issuance of the office order dated 12.09.2011 by stating that various representations were received from the RWA, K-Block RWA, C.R. Park, respondent No.4 and other associations regarding holding of Durga Puja in the aforesaid park and only after conducting an inspection of the area alongwith the Area Councillor and zonal staff of the Horticulture Department, it was W.P.(C) 6657/2011 Page 3 of 5 decided to grant permission to respondent No.4 to perform Puja in the said park.
5. Considering the fact that the respondent/MCD has laid down a policy for booking of parks for the purpose of holding public functions, festivities and other functions, which is applicable only to those parks which have been duly notified by MCD in that regard and further having regard to the fact that the park, subject matter of the present petition is admittedly not such a notified park, the issuance of the office order dated 12.09.2011 by the respondent/MCD is without any justification and in derogation of its own Rules and regulations.
6. As for the submission of the counsel for respondent No.4 that the RWA of the area has granted permission to his client to perform Durga Puja in the park, the same would be of relevance only if that RWA would have first approached respondent/MCD for getting the subject park notified for the purposes of holding public functions, festivals etc. therein. In the absence of any such notification issued by MCD, much less any representation made by the RWA in that regard, this Court is not inclined to accept the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for respondent No.4.
7. In view of the fact that it is respondent/MCD's own case that the office order was issued under some special circumstances and considering the fact that admittedly, the park in question was never notified by the respondent/MCD as per the guidelines for booking of parks issued under W.P.(C) 6657/2011 Page 4 of 5 circular dated 04.11.2010 and the applicable Rules, the office order dated 12.09.2011 could never have been passed. Office order dated 12.9.2011 issued by the respondent/MCD is unsustainable and consequently set aside. Respondents No.1 and 3/MCD are directed to ensure that the park is maintained as a recreational park and no public/private function is held there. This however does not preclude the RWA from approaching the respondent/MCD with a request to notify the subject park for the purposes of holding social/religious functions, private/public functions etc. in the future. If such an application is received by the respondent/MCD, it shall consider the same as per its policy and rules framed in that regard and take a decision thereon, after hearing all the stakeholders.
8. The petition is dismissed alongwith the pending applications, while leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
HIMA KOHLI,J SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 'rkb' W.P.(C) 6657/2011 Page 5 of 5