Chattisgarh High Court
Raipur Muslim Samaj vs The Collector Raipur on 11 September, 2024
1
2024:CGHC:35542
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 4521 of 2024
1. Raipur Muslim Samaj Through- Its Member Rahil Raufi S/o Zafar
Raufi Aged About- 45 Years R/o Bairang Bazar, Raipur Dist- Raipur
( C.G.).
... Petitioners
versus
1. The Collector Raipur Raipur, District-Raipur(C.G.).
2. The Add. Collector Raipur, District-Raipur(C.G.).
3. The Superintendent Of Police Raipur, District- Raipur ( C.G.).
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Badruddin Khan, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. Adv. General.
SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 11/09/2024
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-
"10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioners.
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondentsto give permission for taking out procession of Eid Miladun- Nabi festival for 16.09.2024 like other communities in Sadar Bazar Raipur City.
10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deems fit and appropriate."2
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner- Committee submitted an application before respondents No.2 and 3 seeking permission for taking out religious procession in the city of Raipur on on 16.9.2024 on the occasion of Eid Miladun-Nabi. In said application, petitioner has specified the route of the religious procession i.e. Baijnathpara, Malviya Road, Jaistambh Chowk, Ajad Chowk, Sadar Bazar and back to Baijnathpara. Application was submitted on 30.8.2024, mentioning proposed route, however, till filing of petition no decision was taken by respondents concerned, and therefore writ petition is filed.
3. Learned State counsel submits that upon receipt of application from petitioner Committee, intimation letter for meeting to be held on 10.9.2024 was given to petitioner on 3.9.2024. Meeting was convened on 10.9.2024, in which representatives of petitioner also appeared. After discussion in said meeting, the members arrived at the conclusion that 'Eid Milad-un-Nabi' is falling on 16.9.2024 i.e. Monday, proposed route of the procession passes through narrow roads of market area, where there will be heavy rush in market area, therefore, permission to take religious procession from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. cannot be granted as it will cause inconvenience to public at large and may also lead to law and order situation. Representatives of petitioner Committee are accordingly informed with a request to suggest an alternate route by 4:00 p.m. Minutes of meeting was signed by representatives of petitioner and copy whereof is also made available to them. However, uptil now, representatives of petitioner committee has not come forward 3 with an alternate route for taking out procession on festive occasion of Eid Milaad-un-Nabi. A letter is also forwarded by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Raipur to the Additional Collector/ Additional District Magistrate, Raipur, on the same date mentioning reason due to which permission to take out out procession from the proposed route cannot be granted and permission can be granted on the alternate routes if suggested by petitioner. Accordingly, Additional District Magistrate vide letter dated 10.9.2024 informed petitioner and other members and also mentioned reason for non-grant of permission to take out procession on 16.9.2024 from 9:00 am to 9:00 pm. He submits that till today morning, no alternate route has been suggested by petitioner. He submits that similar situation has arisen during last year also, petitioner was proposed and permitted to take out procession from alternate route, which is forming part of letter dated 16.9.2023. Alternate route consists of Amblidih, Water tank, Canal Road, PWD Office, Katora Talab, Netaji Chowk, Akashwani, Kali Mata Temple, Nalghar Chowk to Sirat ground. Said route was not accepted but other alternate route was proposed by applicant therein which was considered and permitted. Petitioner therein i.e. Md. Islam (Madalsa Faizane Imame Brijnagar) Raipur has proposed one another route on 28.9.2023 suggesting to take out procession through Brijnagar, Santoshi Nagar, Sanjay Nagar, Siddharth Cowk, Kalabadi Kotwali Chowk, Chhotapara, Baijnathpara and it was accepted. Accordingly the procession was taken out by petitioner through said route. He submits that if petitioner accepts and opts any of aforementioned two routes, as 4 proposed in letter dated 16.9.2203 or 26.9.2023, permission can be granted to petitioner on either of the routes.
4. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner opposes submission made by counsel for State and submits that he has placed on record copy of letter dated 5.7.2204 granting permission for procession of Rath Yatra, which was to be taken out on 7.7.2024. In said letter, permission was granted almost on identical route as sought by petitioner and procession was permitted from 4:00 pm till 8:30 pm, therefore, action on the part of respondent authorities is arbitrary and discriminatory. He submits that action of the respondents is violative to Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. In support of his submission, he referred one newspaper cutting also which is placed on record along with covering memo.
5. Learned State counsel submits that there is no dispute that the administration of Raipur City has permitted for taking out procession of Lord Jagannath on 7.7.2204, reason being 7.7.2024 was Sunday when government offices remain closed and the markets of the city of Raipur also remain closed on Sunday and there was no traffic pressure on the route proposed and hence permitted for taking out procession. Under such circumstances, permission was granted. He also submits that as per his information in that procession the permission was with respect to about 300 persons, however, in the application submitted by the petitioner, it is clearly mentioned that more than 50,000/- people will participate in the procession which will definitely be much more that too in a crowded market area . 5
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record and also the documents placed before this Court during course of hearing by counsel for State, copies of which are also handed over to counsel for petitioner.
7. Perusal of Annexure- P/1 would show that petitioner submitted application seeking permission to take out procession from Baijnathpara via Malviya Road, Jaistambh Chowk, Azad Chowk and Sadar Bazar and back to Baijnathpara. Number of persons expected to join the procession is mentioned as more than 50,000. After receipt of application, respondents have issued the letter to petitioner on 3.9.2024 i.e. on the next date of receipt of application, fixing the date of meeting asking them to join and participate in meeting to be held on 10.9.2024 at 12:00 noon at the identified place. As per document placed before this Court by counsel for State i.e. proceeding of meeting dated 10.9.2024, representatives of petitioner participated in the meeting including petitioner. In said meeting after considering the application, proceedings was recorded that the route proposed and applied by petitioner is very narrow and busiest route of the city of Raipur, therefore, it would not be possible for the administration to grant permission to petitioner to take out procession on the route applied for. It is further mentioned that if petitioner propose alternate route, it can be considered. Representatives of petitioner and petitioner have signed the proceedings, however, they have not proposed any alternate route for taking out procession. The Additional District Magistrate also informed the petitioner on 10.9.2024 that it is not possible to grant permission to take out procession on the 6 occasion of Eid Miladun-Nabi on the route which is proposed and if petitioner suggests any alternate route, the same can be considered. During course of argument, the petitioner has not brought to the notice of the Court any material showing that alternate route has been suggested. However, submission of counsel for petitioner is that action of respondents in not granting permission to petitioner to take out procession from the route mentioned in application is discriminatory. To appreciate this submission of counsel for petitioner, this Court perused the letter dated 16.9.2023 placed before this Court by counsel for State. In said letter, request of the applicant therein for taking out procession along with 100 people was considered for the route from Mahatma Gandhi Nagar to Seerat Maidan via Amlidih, Katora Talab, Netaji Chowk, Akaswani, Nalghar Chowk. The route proposed by the State Administration in the letter dated 16.9.2023 was not accepted by petitioner therein and other route was suggested i.e. starting from Brij Nagar to Baijnathpara via Santoshi Nagar, Sanjay Nagar,Siddharth Chowk, Kalibadi, Kotwali, Chhotapara, which was accepted by the State Administration and permission was granted vide letter dated 26.9.2023. Thus, it is clear that last year, procession for Eid was taken out by the community on the opted alternate route as mentioned in the letter dated 26.9.2023.
8. In the proceeding recorded in the meeting dated 10.9.2024 and in letter written to petitioner on 10.9.2024, it is clearly and specifically mentioned that if alternate route is proposed for taking out procession, the same will be considered. During course of argument counsel for State submitted that if one of 7 routes as appearing in the letters dated 16.9.2023 and 26.9.2023 is opted by the petitioner, the State Administration will have no objection and permission can be granted.
9. It is not in dispute that petitioner submitted application seeking permission to start procession on 16.9.2024 on account of Eid Milad-un-Nabi festival. Though it is State holiday, however, this fact cannot be over looked that 16.9.2024 being Monday, the entire market of the area will remain open, on account of holiday on 16.9.2024, there may be chances of extra gathering in the market area due to holiday. Permitting for procession in a particular area is the matter to be looked into by the Administration keeping in mind it may not cause any inconvenience to the public, and also to look that law and order situation should not arise. In the application, petitioner has expected that there may be more than 50,000 people in Eid Miladun-Nabi procession.
10.In case of Commissioner of Police and others versus Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta and another, reported in (2004) 12 SCC 770, Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the issue of religious performance in public places and observed thus:-
"89.The Commissioner has got power to regulate assemblies, meetings and processions in public places, etc. It specifically provides that he is entitled to prescribe the routes by which and the times at which such processions may pass, in order to keep the public places (sic free) and prevent obstructions on the occasion of such assemblies, meetings and processions and in the 8 neighbourhood of places of worship during the time of worship."
11. In the aforementioned facts of the case, submission of counsel for petitioner that petitioner has been discriminated while denying permission to take out procession on route applied for and at the same time, granting permission to others, to be discriminatory is not appearing to be correct.
12.For the aforementioned reason, I do not find any good ground in this petition warranting interference in decision taken by respondents on the application of petitioner for permission to take out procession. Accordingly, it is dismissed. However, petitioner will be at liberty to proposed alternate route for taking out procession. If any alternate route is proposed by petitioner, respondent shall consider and take decision in accordance with law expeditiously.
13.Certified copy today.
Sd/-
Digitally
signed by
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
SYED SYED
ROSHAN
Judge
ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI
ZAMIR Date:
ALI 2024.09.11
20:09:39
+0530