Lav-Kush Ramlila Committee vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi ...
2003 Latest Caselaw 1031 Del

JUDGMENT

Vikramajit Sen, J.

1. The annals of this litigation will have to be narrated in some detail. The Shri Ram Lila Committee have filed CWP No. 5358/2003 with the following prayers:

"i) restrain the Respondent Authorities from sub-dividing, parting the Ram Lila Ground in any manner and from allotting the part of the Ram Lila Ground to any other Ram Lila Committee for holding the Ram Lila celebrations.

ii) restrain the Respondent Authorities from interfering in the Petitioner Committee's right, No Objection Permissions, approvals given by Respondent No. 2/Dy. Commissioner of Police, Central District, New Delhi vide letter No. 24258/Argt./Central dated 6.8.2003 and Respondent No. 3/Dy. Commissioner of Police, North District, Delhi vide letter No. 23757/CN dated 23.7.2003.

iii) direct the MCD to hand over the possession of Ram Lila Ground to the Petitioner Committee in lieu of permissions given by Respondent No. 2/Dy. Commissioner of Police, Central District, New Delhi vide letter No. 24258/Argt./Central dated 6.8.2003 and Respondent No. 3/Dy. Commissioner of Police, North District, Delhi vide letter No. 23757/CN dated 23.7.2003."

2. The following averments have been made in the Writ Petition:

"It is relevant to mention that LAV KUSH RAM LILA COMMITTEE and NAV SHRI DHARMIK LILA COMMITTEE have not been given by permissions, sanctions, approvals for holding the Ram Lila at Ram Lila Ground and the Authorities are intending to oblige them and circumventing the circumstances that too when the permissions, sanctions, approvals have already been given to the Petitioner Committee has been celebrating the Ram Lila for the last more than 70 years.

That the question of allotting the Ram Lila Ground to any other Committee does not arise as neither there is such further space available at Ram Lila Ground which is also proved from the fact that vehicles are being parked at a distance of more than 1 Km at Asaf Ali Road for the security reasons, therefore, the Dy. Commissioner of Police (Special Branch) has nothing to do with the permissions, sanctions, approvals for the Ram Lila celebrations but Office of the Dy. Commissioner of Police (Special Branch) is being used in order to pressurize the Petitioner Committee and to accommodate other Ram Lila Committees who admittedly had been celebrating Ram Lilas at Red Fort Grounds.

It is no physically possible to hold two-three Ram Lilas at one Ram Lila Ground under any circumstances and possession of Ram Lila Ground is being delayed only on account of oral instructions given by Respondent Authorities."

3. By its letter dated 6.8.2003 the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Central District, Delhi had informed the Shri Ram Lila Committee that its request for the use of the Ram Lila Ground for Ram Lila celebrations commencing from 26.9.2003 to 6.10.2003 and for the period 28.8.2003 to 8.10.2003 has been granted subject to certain conditions. Reliance had also been placed on the letter dated 22.8.2003 issued by the Office of the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Special Branch, Delhi in which the Nav Shri Dharmik Lila Committee and Lav Kush Ram Lila Committee were to be assigned alternative venue since the parks earlier used by them had been handed over to the A.S.I. for development. These persons were informed of the holding of a Co-ordination Committee on 25.8.2003.

4. Civil Writ Petition No. 5358/2003was disposed of by the following Orders:

"26.8.2003.

Present: Mr. A.Maitri, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr. Kailash Gambhir, Advocate for respondents 1 to 4

Mr. R.K.Yadav, Advocate for respondent No. 5.

CW 5358/2003

The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner based on mere apprehension since the contention is that site for Ramlila may not be handed over despite the letter dated 06.08.2003 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police.

Learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4 states that there is no proposal to withdraw the NOC. It is also clarified that the issuance of NOC by the Deputy Commissioner of Police vide letter dated 06.08.2003 will not prevent the said authority from considering the case of other Ramlila Committees.

In so far as letter to be issued by the MCD, respondent No. 5 is concerned, it is stated that same is yet to be issued. Taking into consideration the urgency of the matter as the petitioner has to carry out necessary preliminary construction/structures, as also the fact that the petitioner is stated to have approached the MCD as far back as on 07.08.2003, it is directed that the case of the petitioner for necessary permission be processed in accordance with law within a maximum period of five days from today.

The writ petition stands disposed of.

CM No. 9466/2003

No further orders are called for in this application in view of the disposal of the writ petition.

Application stands disposed of.

August 26, 2003 SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J."

5. The Shri Ram Lila Committee thereafter filed CCP No. 491/2003 under the Contempt of Courts Act alleging the disobeyance of the above OrdeRs. Notice in the Contempt Petition was issued on 5.9.2003, returnable for 9.9.2003, on which date the hearing was adjourned to the following day i.e. 10.9.2003. The following Orders were passed on 10.9.2003.

"10.09.2003

Present: Mr. R.K. Anand, Sr. Advocate with Mr. A. Maitri for the Petitioner

Mr. Ashok Bhasin with Mr. Chetan Dutt for the Respondent .

CCP No. 491/2003

Mr. Bhasin, learned counsel for the M.C.D. has filed documents dated 9.9.2003 in Court today as well as previous Order passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul on August 26, 2003. The Resolution dated 9.9.2003 reads thus:

"It has been brought to the notice of the Standing Committee by Shri Ram Lila Committee (Regd.), Ram Lila Ground, A-1, Friends Colony (East), Mathura Road, New Delhi, vide their letter dated 09/09/2003, that the MCD has granted permission to Ram Lila Committee, of which Shri Rajesh Khanna is the Secretary, to use half of the land of Ram Lila Ground for Ram Lila celebrations vide orders dated 29/08/2003. It has also been mentioned in the said letter that they are directed to submit NOC from the DCP (Traffic). It appears that it was not brought to the notice of the Commissioner that the DCP (Central Distt.), vide order dated 06/08/2003 has already granted permission for use of whole of the Ram Lila Ground for Ram Lila celebrations commencing from 26/09/2003 to 06/10/2003 and for the period from 28/08/2003 to 08/10/2003. It seems that Luv Kush Ram Lila Committee had also applied for permission to use the ground near the Red Fort, to hold Ram Lila celebrations, the permission for the same has not been granted by them.

It has also been brought to the notice of the Standing committee that Ram Lila committee have been performing Ram Lila celebrations for the last 70 years and the permission has also been granted to organize Bharat Milap on 06/10/2003. A very big procession comprising of Jhankis, elephants, Camels is also taken out, which pass through the entire area of Chandni Chowk and surrounding areas. At least, two acres of land is earmarked or burning three effigies of Ravana, Kumbhakarana and Meghnath. If two acres of land out of the allotted three acres is acquired for that purpose, it would not be possible to perform Ram Lila celebrations in the remaining area, as no separate parking space has been earmarked. Sitting arrangements, parking space for the benefit of the visiting public have also to be kept in mind apart from the fact that even VVIPs and high dignitaries, who are prone to security risks also witness this Ram Lila. In view of these fact, s holding of two Ram Lilas at Ram Lila Ground is not possible, beside being dangerous to the public safety, l since there will be a clash between two Ram Lilas, especially of the procession, which is carried out.

Even otherwise, the Lav Kush Ram Lila Committee, did not have the permission from DCP (Traffic) before the Commissioner passed and order giving permission to use half of Ram Lila Ground. In the past also, Lav Kush Ramlila Committee has been allotted two acres of land near the Red Fort for holding the Ram Lila Celebrations. It is surprising that in view of these facts, how could the MCD granted permission to them for holding Ram Lila Celebrations in three acres at the Ram Lila Ground. They can be adjusted either at Peti Market, near Red Fort area or near IGI Indore Stadium on the Ring Road or at Ajmal Khan Park, New Delhi.

The permission granted to Lav Kush Ramlila Committee does not hold good in view of the fact that they did not possess NOC from the DPC (Traffic). Accordingly, they may be asked to apply for permission to organise Ram Lila at a place other than Ram Lila Ground and their case may be considered sympathetically.

The above Resolution is passed in anticipation of the approval of the Standing Committee, which is going to be held on 10th September, 2003".

A copy of the documents has also been handed over by Mr. R.K. Anand, learned counsel for the Petitioner. The Respondents shall abide by the Resolution.

In view of the Resolution no orders are called for in this Petition and the Petition stands disposed of in these directions.

dusty.

September 10, 2003 Vikramajit Sen, J."

6. The Lav Kush Ram Lila Committee (hereafter referred to as the Petitioner Committee) has filed the present Petition in which, by the Orders of the Court, the Shri Ram Lila Committee (hereafter referred to as the Respondent Committee) was also imp leaded. On 17.9.2003, Hon'ble Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul passed the following Order, and it is in these circumstances that the Petition has been placed before me and I have heard arguments extensively.

"17.09.2003.

Present: Mr. P.N.Lekhi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. R.P. Bansal, Sr.Advocate with Mr. P.D.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ashok Bhasin with Mr. Chetan Dutt, Advocate for respondents 1, 2, 3 & 7.

Mr. Maninder Singh, Advocate with Mr. N.

Pandey, Advocate for respondent No. 4.

Mr. V.K.Tandon, Advocate for respondents 4 and 5.

Mr. R.K.Anand, Sr. Advocate with Mr. A.Maitri for respondent No. 8.

CW 5937/2003 & CM No 10458/2003

The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition arises as a consequence of the impugned letter dated 10.09.2003 having been issued to the petitioner cancelling the allotment made to the petitioner for 50% of the ground by respondent Corporation for holding of Ramlila.

The impugned letter states that the direction has been issued in pursuance to the orders passed in CW No. 5358/2003 dated 26.08.2003 and CCP No. 491/2003 dated 02.09.2003. The records of both the cases were called for today.

In so far as the CW No. 5358/2003 is concerned, there is no direction passed in this behalf and in fact the observation is that the NOC issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police will not prevent the said authority from considering the case of other Ramlila Committees.

A reading of the order in CCP, however, shows that there is a positive direction passed by the learned Judge after noting the subsequent Resolution of the Standing Committee dated 09.09.2003 that the respondents shall abide by the Resolution. The effect of the aforesaid would be that, if the Court agrees with the contention of the petitioner, a direction would have to be issued that the said Resolution of the Standing Committee would not be given effect to while on the other hand there is already a positive direction to the respondents in terms of order in CCP to abide by the Resolution.

In view of the aforesaid, I am of the considered view that it would be appropriate to place the present writ petition before Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen along with the records of CW No. 5358/2003 and CCP 491/2003 as the order in the CCP is passed by the Hon'ble Judge.

Subject to Hon'ble the Chief Justice list before Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen on 18.09.2003.

September 17, 2003 SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J."

7. Mr. Bansal places reliance on the letter of the Petitioner Committee dated 7.4.2003 to the Director (Horticulture), M.C.D. in which it has been stated that "due to the transfer of the Red Ford (Car Parking) Ground to Archaeological Survey of India for development, the same is not available this year for celebration of Ramlila/Dussehra Festival. We, therefore, request your goodself to kindly do the needful so that the ground under reference is allotted in the name of our Committee........". Mr. Bansal has placed reliance on the letter of the M.C.D. dated 29.8.2003 informing the Petitioner Committee that one half portion of the Ram Lila Ground, Turkman Gate side, had been allotted to it for the period 8.9.2003 to 7.10.2003 subject to furnishing of a NOC from the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Delhi. The other half of the Ram Lila Ground was simultaneously allotted to the Respondent Committee. These letters have been authored by the Asstt.Director (Horticulture)/CZ and do not even purport to be pursuant to the Orders of the Commissioner, M.C.D. The NOC from the Office of the Dy. Commissioner of Police: Central District was issued in terms of its letter dated 5.9.2003 to the Petitioner Committee, and on that very date the Security and license Fee has been paid by the Petitioner Committee. Numerous photographs have been placed on the record showing that `Bhoomi Puja' has been held at the site by the Petitioner Committee. Copies of Invitation Cards have also been placed on record. The Petitioner Committee, however, is aggrieved with the letter dated 10.9.2003 issued by the MCD which states that- "in compliance of Orders of Hon'ble High Court dated 10.9.2003 in reference of CW No. 5358/2003 dated 26.8.2003 and CCP 491/2003 dated 2.9.2003 regarding the Shri Ram Lila Committee (Regd.) v. M.C.D., it is hereby intimated that your allotment for the above mentioned Ground is cancelled with immediate effect".

8. It has been emphasized by Mr. Anand that the Resolution of the Standing Committee in respect of Item No. 216 has not been challenged in this Writ Petition in which the following prayers have been made:

"(a) Certiorari quashing the order dated 10th Sept. 2003 (Annexure P-14) issued by the Respondents, regarding the cancellation of 1/2 portion of Ramlila Ground Turkman Gate side allotted to the petitioner society;

(b) Prohibition directing the Respondents not to act upon the order dated 10th Sept. 2003 (Annexure P- 14);

(c) Prohibition directing the Respondents not to cancel the No Objection Certificate (NOC) dated 05.09.2003 given by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Central District, Delhi Police (Annexure P-6);

(d) Mandamus directing the Respondents not to interfere in the possession of the 1/2 portion of the Ramlila Ground Turkman Gate side and staging the Ramlila, in pursuance of letter dated 29.08.2003 (Annexure P-5).

(e) Summoning for the relevant record of the Delhi Municipal Corporation regarding the proceedings of the Standing Committee dated 10.09.2003 in the matter of allotment of land to Shri Ramlila Committee.

(f) pass any such other and further order/orders and/or directions as may be deemed fit, proper and just in the interest of justice and in the fitness of facts and circumstances of the case;

9. It has not been disputed that the Respondent Committee had deposited the Security and license Fee in respect of the half portion of the Ram Lila Ground allotted to it and that after the passing of the Resolution the remaining Security and license Fee has also been deposited. Mr. Anand has also emphasised the fact that there is no denial to the assertion that the Respondent Committee has been conducting the Ram Lila on this very site for the last 70 yeaRs. Mr. Anand also places reliance on newspaper reports allegedly containing statements made by officials of the ASI that an alternative site for the Ram Lila celebration is available near the Peti Market on the northern side of the Red Fort. It is his submission that it is not possible to hold two separate functions in the subject Ram Lila Grounds and that one of the effigies had fallen on the crowd in the last year. If the area is further restricted there will be a grave danger to the public who come to witness this event, which symbolises the victory of good over evil.

10. It would be a pertidious misconstruction of the Orders passed in CCP 491/2003 to maintain that the allotment or cancellation of the half portion of the Ram Lila Grounds is predicated on any Court Order. While passing these Orders I merely took into consideration the Resolution passed by the MCD which was reproduced therein verbatim. In the Contempt Petition this Court was not called upon to pass any verdict on the validity of the Resolution, or giving its sanction to the exclusive user of the Ram Lila Grounds by the Respondent Committee. The complaint before the Court in CCP 491/2003 was that the Orders of Mr. S.K.Kaul, J., dated 26th August, 2003 had not been complied with and that the Officers of the MCD should be punished for the alleged Contempt. It was submitted by the counsel that the situation had been resolved with the passing of the said Resolution and the Court was not called upon to exercise its judicial mind. In stating that the M.C.D. should abide by its own Resolution, this Court had not passed any independent directions. This is amply clarified from the very next and penultimate sentence viz.- "In view of the Resolution, no Orders are called for in this Petition and the Petition stands disposed of in these directions."

11. The question which has now to be resolved in CW 5937/2003 is whether the cancellation of the allotment to the Petitioner Society is proper and legal. Mr. Bansal contends that in relation to the Puja carried out at the site and the dispatch of Invitation Cards, and the payment of Security and license Fees and the construction at the site, the Petitioners have already spent large sums of money. He has also strenuously submitted that no advantage can be taken by the Respondent Committee of the NOC dated 6.8.2003 issued by the Dy. Commissioner of Police since the NOC would follow only after the allotment of the Ram Lila Grounds. The allotment of the half site occurred only on 29.8.2003 and therefore, the prior NOC should be ignored. Mr. Bansal has further contended that the Standing Committee has usurped the power vested in the Commissioner. Mr. Anand on the other hand has stated that the Commissioner is one of the functionaries of the Corporation, but in the scheme of the Act, primacy is that of the Standing Committee. The Commissioner is bound to implement the Resolution of the Standing Committee and Section 59 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act does not detract from this position. Mr. Bhasin and Mr. Sabharwal, counsels for the MCD, have stated that the Resolution of the Standing Committee would have to be implemented, although there was a feeble attempt to take refuge behind my Order dated 10.9.2003. The attempt of the Respondent Committee to create an impression that it was this Court decision to allot the entire Ram Lila grounds to it is not only incorrect, and I strongly deprecate it.

12. The initiative in the resolution of the dispute pertaining to the allotment of the Ram Lila Grounds, in my considered view, lies with the M.C.D. Neither of the Committees has a vested right in the user of the Ram Lila Ground although the Respondent Committee would have preference keeping in perspective its long and consecutive user. Its allotment is subject to the availability of the Grounds and considerations of public order and safety. No doubt some legitimate expectations, if not contractual rights, had been created on the allotment of half of the Ram Lila Grounds to each of the rival Committees. One must not lose sight of the public character of Ram Lila celebration. Neither of the Committees can be heard to say that it is their private enterprise, since the primary objective must be the participation of the public at large. If the Standing Committee of the M.C.D. has considered it expedient to recall the decision of the Asstt. Director (Horticulture) dated 29.8.2003, inter alia, for the reason that the holding of two Ram Lilas at the Ram Lila Ground is not possible being dangerous to public safety, and the possibility of a clash between two Ram Lilas, especially of the procession, it would not be appropriate for the Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to come to a contrary conclusion, given these apprehensions, and the fact that the Respondent Committee has undisputedly been organising Ram Lilas at this very site for over half a century and that the Petitioner Committee had in the past years held its celebrations in the Red Fort area. However, it has not been shown that the decision of allotment emanated from the Commissioner. Furthermore, it has also not been disclosed whether any decision was taken at the proposed meeting of the Coordination Committee which was to be held on 25.8.2003. So far as monetary loss is considered it can always be compensated for and the Petitioner Committee can avail of its legal remedies in this regard.

13. The grant of the prayers contained in the application is declined and the application is dismissed.

Civil Writ No. 5937/2003

14. Renotify on 23.9.2003.

15. Copy of the Order be given dusty to counsel for the parties under the signature of Court Master.