Bombay High Court
Indian Church Trustees Through Its ... vs State Of Maharashtra And 3 Ors on 29 November, 2022
Author: S.G. Dige
Bench: R.D. Dhanuka, S.G. Dige
906-rpwl59-19c.doc
vai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
Digitally signed
VASANT
by VASANT
ANANDRAO REVIEW PETITION (LODGING) NO.59 OF 2019
ANANDRAO
IDHOL
Date:
IN
IDHOL 2022.12.01
14:58:32
WRIT PETITION NO.2197 OF 1998
+0530 WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1963 OF 2000
Prabhu Yeshu Janmotsav,
A Public Charitable Trust ...Petitioner
V/s.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
REVIEW PETITION (LODGING) NO.87 OF 2019
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.2197 OF 1998
Indian Church Trustees, through Its Bishop
Anilkumar M. Lund & Anr. ...Petitioners
V/s.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
Mr.Soli Cooper, Senior Counsel with Mr.Ankur Shah and Mr.Yohan
Cooper and Mr.Jatin Sheth for the Petitioner. In PRWL No.59 of 2019.
Mr.Mayur Khandeparkar with Mr.Joshua Abhay Patnigere for the
Petitioners in RPWL No.87 of 2019.
Mr.Milind More, Addl. Government Pleader with Mr.Himanshu Takke,
AGP for the State - Respondent No.1 in both the Review Petitions.
Mr.Anil Y. Sakhare, Senior counsel with Mr.Yashodeep Deshmukh,
Ms.Rupali Adhate i/b M/s.Sunil Sonawane for MCGM - Respondent
No.2 in PRWL No.59 of 2019.
Mr.Rajan Jaykar with Mr.Vaibhav Bajpai with Ms.Dimple Merchant,
1/14
906-rpwl59-19c.doc
Ms.Juni Shah i/b M/s.I.V. Merchant & Co. for the Respondent No.3 in
both the Review Petitions - Monitoring Committee.
Mr.Y.R. Mishra with Ms.Rina Mishra, Mr.Upendra Lokegaonkar for the
Respondent No.4 in both the Review Petitions.
Ms.Indrani Malkani - Representative of the Respondent No.3
Committee present in Court.
Mr.Imran Khan, Junior Engineer "D" Ward - Maintenance Department
- MCGM present in Court.
CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA &
S.G. DIGE, JJ.
DATE : 29TH NOVEMBER, 2022.
P.C. :-
1. By these review petitions, the review petitioners seek a modification of the order dated 21st June, 2018 passed by the Division Bench of this Court and seek a larger area to the extent of 25,000 sq. mtrs. at Girgaum Chowpatty to organize and celebrate the Christmas Music Festival as compared to the area designated i.e. 300 x 150 sq. ft. equivalent to 4180.3 sq. mtrs. permitted by an order dated 21st June, 2018.
2. Before we consider the rival submissions made by all the parties, we make it clear that at this stage we are not disposing off these two review petitions filed by the review petitioners seeking a modification of the order dated 21st June, 2018 but are passing interim orders and would consider the review petitions at later stage.
3. The review petitioner in Review Petition (Lodging) No.59 of 2019 have been organizing the Christmas Music Festival since 2/14 906-rpwl59-19c.doc 1965 and is a registered public charitable trust. The review petitioners in Review Petition (Lodging) No.87 of 2019 are registered trusts, who have filed this review petition for similar reliefs.
4. The review petitions are filed on various grounds as summarized in paragraph 4 of the Review Petition (Lodging) No.87 of 2019. It is the case of the review petitioner in Review Petition (Lodging) No.59 of 2019 that when the said order was passed by this Court in the writ petition, the petitioner was not heard. Mr.Cooper, learned senior counsel for the petitioner in Review Petition (Lodging) No.59 of 2019 submitted that even prior to the date of the said order, which the petitioners seek a modification, the Collector had granted permission to hold the same event by permitting a larger area to the extent of 25,000 sq. mtrs. at Girgaum Chowpatty. He submitted that even after the passing of the order dated 21st June, 2018 passed by this Court, the petitioners have been granted permission twice by this Court in view of the liberty granted by this Court in the said order.
5. Learned senior counsel invited our attention to the orders passed by this Court on 9th December, 2019 in Writ Petition (Lodging) No.3443 of 2019 and the order passed by another Division Bench of this Court on 11th December, 2018 in Writ Petition (Lodging) No.4071 of 2018 filed by the petitioners. He submitted that in both these orders, this Court has clearly observed while granting permission to 3/14 906-rpwl59-19c.doc hold the Christmas Music Festival on the area of 15,000 sq. mtrs. that there were no complaints made against the petitioners while holding the event. The petitioners had been maintaining complete cleanliness during the course of the event as well as thereafter.
6. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that this Court in the said order dated 21st June, 2018 had accepted the guidelines submitted by the respondent no.4 - Committee and permitted deviation of the said order in future as per the requirement of the parties holding such event permissible under those guidelines.
7. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that as on today, the requirement of the petitioners would be for the area admeasuring 25,000 sq. mtrs. at Girgaum Chowpatty considering the expected members of the community at around 25,000. He submitted that the programme would be only for around five hours on 11th December, 2022. He submitted that the other programmes permitted by this Court by accepting the guidelines of the respondent no.4 - Committee are held for more than a day, whereas in this case the programme would be only for about 5 hours and thus to accommodate about 25,000 persons, the requirement of the petitioners would be for a larger area and to the extent of 25,000 sq. mtrs. He submits that prior to the date of the said order dated 21 st June, 2018, 25,000 persons were already permitted by the Municipal 4/14 906-rpwl59-19c.doc Corporation and the Collector.
8. Learned senior counsel, on instructions also made a statement that there is no question of any commercial venture at Girgaum Chowpatty by the petitioners during the course of the event. His client would maintain cleanliness and would deploy number of private security guards. Learned senior counsel also invited our attention to the alleged violation pointed out by the Municipal Corporation in the letter dated 27th December, 2019 addressed by the Municipal Corporation to the Chairman of the review petitioner and submitted that each of the violations alleged by the Municipal Corporation are factually incorrect. He explained before this Court that the alleged violation pointed out by the Municipal Corporation, even otherwise are petty in nature and cannot be considered as violation. He further assures this Court that if the permission is granted by this Court to hold the event on a larger area, the petitioners would take all the necessary precautions to obviate these allegations in the future.
9. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that since 25,000 persons are expected to attend this event, it would not be possible to accommodate them in the smaller area as permitted by this Court earlier. He submitted that not only the young members of public but also senior citizens, women and children would attend the 5/14 906-rpwl59-19c.doc event. The petitioners are seeking a larger area to obviate any stampede on the date of the event. There would be no noise pollution if the permission is granted by this Court.
10. Mr.Khandeparkar, learned counsel for the review petitioners in Review Petition (Lodging) No.87 of 2019 invited our attention to the order dated 21st June, 2018 passed by this Court and submitted that this Court was conscious of the fact that the said order may be deviated in the future based on the requirement at the time of seeking such permission from this Court. He adopted the submissions made by Mr.Cooper, learned senior counsel in Review Petition (Lodging) No.59 of 2019.
11. Mr.Sakhare, learned senior counsel for the Municipal Corporation vehemently urged that this Court while passing the order dated 21st June, 2018 had accepted the guidelines suggested by the respondent no.4 - Committee which is comprising of the Environmentalist and experts. The recommendations made by the Committee shall be honoured by this Court while considering the permission sought by the petitioners. He submitted that the petitioners have no vested right to seek any such permission. He submitted that both the orders relied upon by the petitioners, which were passed by this Court while granting permission to hold such event in the area of 15,000 sq. mtrs. make it clear that those orders 6/14 906-rpwl59-19c.doc would not be treated as a precedent.
12. Firstly, learned senior counsel invited our attention to the communication dated 27th December, 2019 from the Municipal Corporation to the Chairman of the petitioners pointing out various alleged breaches committed by the petitioners while holding the event permitted by this Court on 14th December, 2019. He vehemently urged that there is nothing to show on record that the foot fall of the event has been about 25,000 in the past. He relied upon the report submitted by the Police Inspector of D.N. Marg Police Station dated 27th January, 2020 stating that in the event of 15th December, 2019, about 7500 to 8,000 persons were present.
13. Mr.Jaykar, learned member of the respondent no.4 - Committee vehemently urged that the guidelines framed by the respondent no.4 - Committee has been accepted by this Court. He invited our attention to the points filed by the Committee as well as supplementary report and submitted that if the permission as sought by the review petitioners is granted, a large portion of Girgaum Chowpatty would be completely blocked by these petitioners which will be to the extent of about 25,000 sq. mtrs. He adopted the submissions made by Mr.Sakhare, learned senior counsel for the Municipal Corporation insofar as the violations pointed out by the Municipal Corporation alleged to have been committed during the 7/14 906-rpwl59-19c.doc event of 2019 by the petitioners. He submitted that various vanity vans were parked by the petitioners at the beach. Commercial advertisements of political parties were displayed. He submitted that though the commercial advertisements were not permitted by this Court under the guidelines formulated by the Committee, the petitioners had displayed such commercial advertisements. The entire area was barricaded by the petitioners as a result of which the view of Girgaum Chowpatty was restricted.
14. Mr.Khandeparkar, learned counsel for the review petitioners in his rejoinder arguments submitted that the petitioners are not seeking relaxation of any other requirement for the purpose of holding such event for a larger area. He submitted that this Court was conscious of the fact that in future the permission would be deviated by the parties for future events at Girgaum Chowpatty for the designated area as per the requirement of the day. He also submits that the barricades that were put up by the petitioners were for better security arrangement. There were entry points put up by the petitioners so as to make the arrangement for security guards with metal detectors. He vehemently denied the submission made by Mr.Jaykar, learned senior member of the Committee that by putting up three feet barricade, the view of the Girgaum Chowpatty would be restricted.
8/14
906-rpwl59-19c.doc
15. By an order dated 21st June, 2018 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.2197 of 1998 filed by Adarsh Chowpatty Pragati Mandal & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Another, this Court while accepting the guidelines submitted by the respondent no.4 - Committee, issued various interim directions. This Court made it clear that three events which were covered by the guidelines should be conducted only on the designated area of 300 x 150 sq. ft. as shown in the plan annexed to the first supplementary report of the Monitoring Committee. This Court held that no deviation shall be permitted without express permission of this Court. Learned senior counsel for the respondents thus could not dispute that deviation can be permitted by this Court on express permission of this Court, pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in paragraph 23 of the said judgment.
16. We shall now consider the case of the petitioners whether or not the petitioners have made out a case for grant of such permission for a larger area. Our attention is invited to the orders passed by this Court on 11th December, 2018 and 9th December, 2019. The objections which are raised by the respondents in these review petitions were also raised before this Court when this Court disposed off the Writ Petition (Lodging) No.4071 of 2018 filed by the petitioners. Though both the orders make it clear that the permission 9/14 906-rpwl59-19c.doc granted by this Court to hold the Christmas Music Festival on the area of 15,000 sq. mtrs. would not be treated as a precedent, the said order does not preclude this Court from modifying the order, if case is made out for such modification in the facts of this review petition independently. By the said order dated 11th December. 2018, this Court took cognizance of the undisputed fact that the petitioners are holding the Christmas Music Festival for more than 50 years at Girgaum Chowpatty. This Court noticed that the claim of the petitioners and the intervenors that approximately 25,000 people assemble for the said festival was also not specifically denied. This Court also took a note that in this festival, children and elderly people are also involved. The petitioners were not heard when the interim directions were passed by this Court.
17. We also take a note that other two festivals i.e. Ram Leela and Krishna Leela are spread over several days, unlike the Christmas Music Festival, which is only for a day. We are inclined to accept the statement made by Mr.Cooper, learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the event proposed to be organized on 11th December, 2022 would be an event for about 5-6 hours.
18. This Court by an order passed in Writ Petition (Lodging) No.3443 of 2019 after considering the similar arguments which are advanced by the respondents and the petitioners in these review 10/14 906-rpwl59-19c.doc petitions, took cognizance of the fact that the Collector of Mumbai had allowed the Christmas Music Festival to be held on an area of 18,000 sq. mtrs. in 2016 and on an area of 25,000 sq. mtrs. in 2017. Not a single complaint of nuisance being created in any manner, or qua breach of security at the festival or any individual being deprived of access to the Girgaum Chowpatty beach, or of any litter being created by the individuals attending the said Christmas Music Festival has been received over these years.
19. We accept the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that Christmas Music Festival would be attended by senior citizens as well as children also and the event would be organized in the designated area that would be permitted by this Court. In our view, Mr.Cooper, learned senior counsel and Mr.Khandeparkar, learned counsel for the review petitioners are right in their submissions that about 25,000 numbers of public from the community cannot be accommodated in the area permitted by this Court by an order dated 21st June, 2018, and would create a possibility of stampede.
20. Insofar as the violations alleged by Mr.Sakhare, learned senior counsel for the Municipal Corporation in the letter dated 27 th December, 2019, relied upon by him and Mr.Jaykar, learned member of the respondent no.4 - Committee are concerned, Mr.Cooper, 11/14 906-rpwl59-19c.doc learned senior counsel for the review petitioners explained the alleged violations to impress this Court that there were no violations committed. He also denied, on instructions from his client, that there were any political banners were put up by his clients.
21. Insofar as the parking of vanity vans at the site of Girgaum Chowpatty is concerned, he submitted that during the Ganpati festival, the Municipal Corporation permits a large number of heavy vehicles on the beach for limited hours. He submitted that the said allegations made in the said letter dated 27th December, 2019 are even otherwise without any basis.
22. We are inclined to accept the submission of Mr.Cooper, learned senior counsel of the review petitioner that sufficient number of private security guards would be deployed by the review petitioners in both the petitions at the time of the event to obviate any law and order situation. The review petitioners would also maintain complete cleanliness at the time of the event and even thereafter before handing over the area allowed to be used for the purpose of this event by cleaning it at the costs of the petitioners. The barricades that would be put up by the petitioners at the time of the event would not obstruct any view.
23. We are inclined to modify the directions at serial no.(i) of paragraph 23 of the order dated 21st June, 2018 passed by this Court 12/14 906-rpwl59-19c.doc in Writ Petition Nos.2197 of 1998 and 1963 of 2000 relate to the petitioner trust and relax only for this year.
24. The petitioner trust is permitted to hold the Christmas Music Festival on the area of 15,000 sq. mtrs. It is made clear that this order is passed only based on the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and pending disposal of the review petitions filed by the review petitioners which would be heard shortly. This order should not be treated as a precedent. It is made clear that in future if any such application for relaxation is made, the same would be considered on the facts of that case and on its own merits.
25. The appropriate authority shall forthwith demarcate the area of 15,000 sq. mtrs. and show for the Christmas Music Festival to be held on 11th December, 2022.
26. It is made clear that the permission is granted to the petitioners subject to the following orders :-
i). The petitioners shall ensure that no commercial advertisements shall be displaced.
ii). The petitioners shall take all necessary permissions from the local authorities.
iii). The petitioners shall comply with the various environmental rules.
iv). The petitioners shall take all the necessary precautions 13/14 906-rpwl59-19c.doc by deploying private security guards on the date of the event to obviate any law and order situation.
v). The other issues raised in the review petitions would be dealt with at the time of hearing of the review petitions. It is made clear that all the conditions imposed by the authorities while granting permission to hold such event shall be scrupulously followed by the petitioners. It is made clear that the representative of the respondent no.4 - Committee, representative of the Collector, representative of the Municipal Corporation and of the concerned police station can visit the site on the date of event and take photographs.
vi). Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
27. Place both the review petitions on board for hearing and final disposal on 20th January, 2023.
28. The respondents are permitted to file an affidavit in reply in both the review petitions within four weeks from today. Rejoinder, if any, shall be filed on or before 16th January, 2023.
S.G. DIGE, J.) (R.D. DHANUKA, J.)
14/14