Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Both these Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner No.1 in Writ Petition No. 3123/2011 is a Registered Public Trust bearing No. B-32(N)-1961, which has majority of Muslim community as its members. Petitioner No.2 is resident of Mominpura area since birth where the said Masjid of petitioner no.1 is situated. The petitioners seek relief from indefinite curfew imposed in the Mominpura area because of burial of one "Mohd. Mustafa Mohd.

Ansari", popularly known as "Baba" in the premises of respondent no.6

- Central Tanzim Committee (hereinafter referred to as CTC for short) .

They contend that because of this, education of about 7000 to 8000 students studying in 15 to 20 schools and junior colleges within the said area is disturbed. It is also alleged that the religious sentiments of muslim community who offer their prayers in 5 - 6 masjids located in the area are also hurt and livelihood of several others who earn it by carrying small trades, has been adversely affected. Claim is that the curfew has affected about 3 lacs of people directly or indirectly. The Baba in relation to whose burial controversy has arisen was a revered figure. He is referred to as "Late Baba" in the body of this petition.

It is stated that said persons thus disturbed the communal harmony amongst two sects at Mominpura, which has led to law and order problem in Nagpur. Petitioners state that complaints were filed with respondent no.5 Police Station by different persons, including a suo moto complaint by the police constable Sheikh Kumar Pande bearing Crime No.143/11 for offences under Sections 143, 144, 148, 149, 353, 354, 355 read with Section 134 of the Indian Police Act. Respondent no.4 Police Commissioner is stated to have arranged a joint meeting of both the groups on 30.06.2011 and made attempts to resolve the controversy amicably. The situation could not be diffused and petitioners made representation to respondents on 28.06.2011. It is further pointed out that the police called two additional companies of State Reserve Police Force to maintain peace in the area, and since 29.06.2011, curfew has been imposed under the orders of Joint Commissioner of Police.

33. The alleged disputed questions pressed into service by respondent no.7 are that burial is with consent of respondent no.6, and in presence of entire Executive Committee and Police personnel. In the alternative, it is urged that there is specific acceptance of that burial and hence, an ex-post facto sanction. The other disputed question is stated to be about the group responsible for behaviour/conduct leading to law and order situation. Facts noted by us above clearly show that the law and order situation is still worse and is being controlled by imposing curfew. Relaxation of curfew from 8 a.m., to 2 p.m., cannot be viewed as restoration of normalcy. The effort by learned Senior Counsel to contend that prayer made in Criminal Writ Petition No.376/2011 has been repeated unnecessarily in present writ petition, therefore, needs to be rejected. In that writ petition, this Court has noted statement of learned Government Pleader that all necessary efforts were being made by the Police Commissioner and his police force for restoring law and order and ensure that peace and tranquility of the area is not disturbed.