Bombay High Court
Lok Nayak Bapuji Aney Smarak Samiti, ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Chief ... on 7 July, 2021
Author: Anil S.Kilor
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Anil S. Kilor
2-pil 16-21.odt
1/7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 16 OF 2021
Lok Nayak Bapuji Aney Smarak Samiti Nagpur through its President
-Vs-
The State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.S.G.Karmarkar, counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. K.S.Joshi, G.P for respondent.
CORAM : SUNIL B.SHUKRE &
ANIL S.KILOR, JJ.
DATE : 07.07.2021.
1. Hearing was conducted through video
conferencing and the learned counsel agreed that the audio and video quality was proper.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondent.
3. The petitioner is an unregistered association, which strives for the welfare of the Vidarbha Region. The petitioner states that it has agitated for completion of irrigation projects in Vidarbha Region by filing Public Interest Litigations and is continuously fighting for the rights of farmers.
4. Now the petitioner, as submitted in paragraph no.4 of the petition, has taken up the cause of some "Warkaris" (foot pilgrims) who have been deprived of opportunity to undertake "Wari" (foot pilgrimage) to Pandharpur, the divine seat of Lord Vitthal. The Kavita ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2021 05:38:27 ::: 2-pil 16-21.odt 2/7 petitioner states that some of the devotees, who used to undertake such foot pilgrimage to Pandharpur every year till recently, could not embark upon it due to Covid-19 restrictions imposed in the State of Maharashtra, although a limited number of devotees, belonging to each of 10 "Manachya Palkhya" or Palanquins of Honour have been permitted by the State of Maharashtra to undertake such travel and pilgrimage . A decision in this regard has been taken on 14.06.2021 and it is challenged in this petition.
5. Thus, the petitioner seeks a direction to the State of Maharashtra to modify the decision of the State of Maharashtra dated 14.06.2021 by allowing more "Warkari" (Foot Pilgrims).
6. The petitioner also seeks further directions regarding formation of Committee of experts to assess the present situation of pandemic Covid-19 and adopt a procedure of considering the issue of grant of permission to Palanquins of Honour by inviting applications from similar palanquin groups in Vidarbha Region.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned decision is discriminatory in nature and that it is also arbitrary for the reason that neither any applications from other eligible palanquin groups situated in Vidarbha Region have been invited nor any criteria except for the criteria of Palanquins of Honour has been adopted while taking the impugned decision. He submits that offering worship by remaining personally Kavita ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2021 05:38:27 ::: 2-pil 16-21.odt 3/7 present before the favourite deity is the fundamental right of every devotee and it cannot be denied to him. He relies upon the view taken in the case of Orrisa High Court of WP(C) No.17898 of 2020 decided on 10.08.2020, by following some of the observations of the Supreme Court of India.
8. Learned Government Pleader has a preliminary objection in the matter. According to her the petitioner has no locus standi as the petitioner is unregistered association and that petitioner is not a "Warkari" and therefore, not at all aggrieved by the impugned decision. She further submits that it is also not known as to whether or not there are any "Manachya Palkhya" in existence and in operation in Vidarbha Region. She further submits that the petitioner has averred in the petition that there are some members of the petitioner- association who are "Warkaris" and who have been deprived of the opportunity to undertake "Wari" to Pandharplur.
9. On going through the pleadings made in this petition, we are of the view that learned G.P. is right in her submissions. Apart from the petitioner-association being unregistered one, the petitioner-association has also not averred that some of the "Warkaris" are its members and that they had applied for grant of permission to them for undertaking "Wari" in the present year to Pandharpur, which has been denied by the State Government. The petitioner only states that some of the Kavita ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2021 05:38:27 ::: 2-pil 16-21.odt 4/7 devotees, who used to go to Pandharpur every year for attending ceremony of 'Ashadhi Ekadashi' approached the petitioner and submitted that they are aggrieved by the decision being taken by the respondent in respect of allowing only "Manachya Palkhya" for going to Pandharpur. Names of these devotees are not mentioned in the petition. It is also not stated in the petition that any of the devotees had indeed made any application, seeking permission of the State of Maharashtra for their going to Pandharpur to attend festival of "Ashadhi Ekadashi".
10. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be said to be a person directly or even indirectly aggrieved by the decision of the State Cabinet in allowing 10 Manachya Palkhya for foot pilgrimage to the Pandharpur on the occasion of "Ashadhi Ekadashi". As of now, there is nothing on record, which indicates that any palanquin group from Vidarbha region or any actual "Warkari" had made an application to the State Government for grant of permission to undertake such "Wari" or foot pilgrimage and same has been refused to it or him. This would, only show that there is no actual suffering of grievance by the petitioner or anybody else, at least as per the record.
11. Even on merits, we do not find any substance in the petition. By the impugned decision, the State Cabinet has allowed 10 Manachya Palkhya or Palanquins of Honour to undertake foot pilgrimage to Pandharpur on Kavita ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2021 05:38:27 ::: 2-pil 16-21.odt 5/7 the occasion of "Ashadhi Ekadashi" and that too in a very restrictive manner. Several conditions have been imposed and one of them relates to ceiling of 100 "Warkaris" or foot pilgrims for the departure ceremony to be held at Dehu and Alandi and then the limit of 50 "Warkaris" for remaining eight ceremonies. The other restriction relates to travelling the distance between places of departure i.e. Dehu and Alandi and a spot situated 1.5. km. before Pandharpur by special vehicles. The other condition is about undertaking actual foot pilgrimage from the spot near Pandharpur to temple at Pandharpur covering hardly a distance of 1.5 km. Several other restrictions are also specifically mentioned in the impugned order.
12. This order, it appears to us, has been issued in conformity with the orders issued by the State Authority under the Disaster Relief and Management Act and also Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897. It is well known that the provisions made in these Acts confer power upon the Nodal authorities to impose certain restrictions and prohibit certain activities by creating containment and non-containment zones with a view to ensure public safety and public health by preventing the spread of epidemic, in the present case, pandemic, resulting from prevalence of Covid-19 disease. Such power has been held by the Apex Court to be entirely discretionary, not to be touched ordinarily and casually by Courts. In the case of Orissa High Court, relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, one observation of the Supreme Court has been referred to in the words, "such Kavita ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2021 05:38:27 ::: 2-pil 16-21.odt 6/7 matter should have been left at the discretion of the State Government", and in our view, it acknowledges power of the State to impose restrictions and restrict movement in the larger interest of society, which is to protect it from spread of Covid. If this is so, restricting "Wari" only to 10 Palanquins of Honour and permitting their members in limited number to undertake foot pilgrimage cannot be said to be an act of arbitrariness and unreasonableness. If a disease which is declared to be pandemic is known for its spread through physical contact, which is the case now, wisdom would require that physical contact be reduced, as a first step towards control of the pandemic, and this is what is done by the impugned order.
13. Following the above observation of Supreme Court, the Orissa High Court has held that it would not issue any general directions in such matters and would require the State of Orissa to examine the grievance of the petitioners, keeping in view the observations of the Supreme Court and take a decision as it may deem appropriate, depending upon situation prevailing, from place to place and time to time, with regard to the entry of public in different places of worship in State of Orissa, by adhering to the norms of social distancing and use of masks and sanitizer etc. So, this decision of Orissa High Court would not assist the case of the petitioner. Above discussion would show that in such matters, no Court would interfere unless, the decision taken is not found to be following the procedure prescribed in the aforestated Acts or is based upon some extraneous or wholly Kavita ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2021 05:38:27 ::: 2-pil 16-21.odt 7/7 irrelevant consideration. Such is not the case here, rather, we find that the impugned decision has been taken in a manner which is consistent with the various prohibitions and restrictions validly imposed by the State authority in the State of Maharashtra. This decision does not appear to be based upon any irrelevant or extraneous consideration nor it appears to be the result of any non- application of mind. Besides, such a decision, is not likely to give rise to any issue of discrimination for the reason that the State has to choose between multitude of devotees and social distancing so necessary to contain Covid-19 pandemic and naturally and legally, the State would go with the requirement of social distancing keeping itself aligned to the orders issued under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897. It is needless to state here that the object of social distancing cannot be achieved without excising the number of devotees who could be permitted to undertake foot pilgrimage to Pandharpur temple on the occasion of "Ashadhi Ekadashi". This is what the State has done here and therefore, we find nothing wrong nor any illegality nor any arbitrariness nor any unreasonableness in the impugned decision dated 14/06/2021. The writ petition, therefore, stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Kavita
::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2021 05:38:27 :::