Maharishi Valmiki Janmotsav ... vs Commissioner Of Police And Ors.
2006 Latest Caselaw 1750 Del

JUDGMENT

S.N. Aggarwal, J.

1. Maharishi Valmiki Janmotsav Committee (Regd.) Delhi Pradesh (hereinafter to be referred as the petitioner) has filed this writ petition seeking directions to the respondents that they should consider and decide immediately their request for permission to take out a Grand Shobha Yatra on the occasion of birth anniversary of Lord Maharishi Valmiki on 07.10.2006. The petitioner had earlier filed a similar writ petition being WP (Crl.) No. 2180/2006 which was disposed of vide order passed by this Court on 20.09.2006 directing the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner for permission expeditiously as per rules. Since the petitioner did not hear any response from the respondents despite directions of this Court, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking directions as referred above.

2. The present writ petition filed by the petitioner was listed on Board of this Court for admission hearing on 04.10.2006 and on that day, notice of this petition was ordered to be sent to the respondents for the next working day i.e. for 05.10.2006. In response to notice of this writ petition, the respondents have filed a status report inter-alia stating that the request of Maharishi Valmiki Janmotsav Committee (Regd.) Delhi Pradesh received through its Secretary Mr. Sanjay Kamwal for taking out Grand Shobha Yatra on 07.10.2006 on the auspicious occasion of birth anniversary of Maharishi Valmiki has been considered but could not be acceeded to as he is affiliated to Mohar Singh Pehalwan and his four brothers namely Brij Mohan, Sher Singh, Jai Chand and Khoob Singh who all are notorious criminals. The respondents also sent a separate communication to the petitioner vide Letter No. 6602/C&T/(AC-IV)/PHQ dated 04.10.2006 informing as under:

With reference to your letter dated 11.09.2006, on the subject cited above, I am directed to State that your request to grant permission for Vishal Rath Shobha Yatra on 07/10/2006 has been considered in this Hdqrs. but the same could not be acceded to from law & order, security and traffic point of view.

3 Since the respondents have already considered the prayer made in the present writ petition and have communicated the decision thereon to the petitioner, the present petition has become infructuous and need no further consideration. However, the petitioner's learned Counsel has vehemently argued that the right to carry out religious procession is a fundamental right guaranteed to every citizen under Article 19 & 25 of the Constitution of India and therefore he has made his submission on the justiciability of the permission granted by the respondents to the other group for taking out Grand Shoba Yatra on the birth anniversary of Lord Maharishi Valmiki tomorrow on 07.10.2006. The learned Counsel has relied upon three judgments of the Supreme Court in Babulal Parate v. State of Maharastra ; Himmat Lal v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad and Sheikh Piru Bux v. Kalandi Pati in support of his contention that the right to take out procession by the petitioner Society is a fundamental right and the respondents could not have rejected the request made by the said society vide order communicated to them in Court today. I am of the view that the right to carry out religious procession and to hold demonstrations undoubtedly is a fundamental right guaranteed to every citizen under Article 19 & 25 of Constitution of India but the remedy for breach of any such right lies on civil side and the High Court exercising criminal jurisdiction would not go into the question of validity of the permission granted by the respondents to one or the other group. There is another important aspect of the matter and that is that the petitioner now seeks to challenge the decision of the respondents declining petitioner's request to take out the procession on the birth anniversary of Maharishi Valmiki tomorrow on 07.10.2006 but the pleadings on which the decision is proposed to be challenged is not either before the Court nor an opportunity has been given to the other side to meet the same.

4 Since counsel on both sides have made detailed submissions regarding justiciability of the permission granted by the respondents to the other side for carrying out the procession tomorrow and the learned standing counsel for the State has taken me through the material considered by the respondents for grant of permission to the group led by Kure Pehalwan to take out the Shobha Yatra, I would like to make a brief mention of the same. The status report filed on behalf of the respondents reveal that the Maharishi Valmiki Janmotsav Committee (Regd.) Delhi Pradesh is a traditional society which was registered long back in the year 1957-58. This society has been taking out the procession on the birth anniversary of Maharishi Valmiki every year for last about 50 years. It is contended that till the year 2002, there was no dispute about the taking out of the procession and the dispute arose for the first time in the year 2003 when a suit for injunction (Suit No. 22/2003) was filed by the petitioner before the Civil Judge, Delhi to stake its claim to take out the Shobha Yatra since the respondents in that year had granted permission for taking Shobha Yatra to Shri Uday Singh Chotiwala belonging to the other group. Since the Civil Judge before whom the application for ex-parte stay came for hearing, declined to grant any stay vide order passed on 16.09.2003, the said order was challenged by the petitioner in appeal (Appeal No. 81/2003). During pendency of this appeal, a compromise deed was filed by the petitioner in the aforementioned civil suit stating therein that the other group led by Kure Pehalwan has allowed the petitioner, led by Mohar Singh Pehalwan, to take out the Shobha Yatra and pursuant to that compromise deed, a compromise decree was passed by the civil Court in Suit No. 22/2003 vide decree dated 22.09.2003. This compromise decree was challenged by the other group led by Kure Pehalwan in execution proceedings by way of an application filed under Section 151 read with Order 41 Rule 5 CPC alleging fraud and deception practiced on the Court. The Court taking note of the allegations of fraud and concealment of material fact, stayed the operation of the compromise decree dated 22.09.2003 vide order passed on 09.10.2003 annexed as Annexure-R-2 to the status report. As a consequence of the stay order dated 09.10.2003, the Shobha Yatra was taken out in the year 2003 by the other group led by Kure Pehalwan. The problem to take out Shobha Yatra again arose in the year 2005. Both the groups i.e. group led by the petitioner and the other group led by Kure Pehalwan applied for permission for taking the Shobha Yatra in that year. However, later on the petitioner withdrew its request to take out the Shobha Yatra in favor of the other group and that document has been shown to me by the learned standing counsel for the State from the police record. Pursuant to an order of the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2208/1976 titled Chandni Chowk Sarv Vyapar Mandal v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi, certain guidelines were framed by the respondents for regulation of processions, meetings etc.- political, labour, religious and marriages which inter-alia provided in Clause-21 as under:

No new religious procession would be allowed w.e.f 1.1.98. Among those which have been held previously, for at least 3 years consecutively in the past 3 years would be allowed in future.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that since the guidelines were framed in 1998 and in case the petitioner was not carrying out the procession for last three consecutive years, why permission was granted by the respondents to the petitioner in 2001 & 2002. This argument of petitioner's learned Counsel has been met by the learned standing counsel for the State who has shown me a resolution of Valmiki Chaudhary Sarpanch Committee (Regd.) Delhi passed in the year 2001 & 2002 constituting a Committee of three persons which includes Mohar Singh Pehalwan as persons to whom authority was given to carry out the procession. It is based upon this delegation of authority that respondents granted permission to the petitioner then led by Mohar Singh Pehalwan. The case of the respondents is that Maharishi Valmiki Janmotsav Committee (Regd.) Delhi Pradesh is a recognized society existing for a long time and the office bearers of the said society are elected on bi-annual basis by Valmiki Chaudhary Sarpanch Committee (Regd.). It is this society which in fact is administering the affairs of the aforementioned society existing since 1957-58. The rejection of the request of the petitioner by the respondents to take out Shobha Yatra is not without substance. As per status report, the petitioner had made a request for permission to take out Shobha Yatra on 07.10.2003 through Mr. Sanjay Kamwal who is associated to Mohar Singh Pehalwan, a notorious criminal. The said Mohar Singh Pehalwan is booked in several criminal cases including a case registered against him vide FIR No. 521/2005 dated 13.09.2005 under Section 186/353/411 IPC and Sections 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act and Sections 3(2) and 3(4) of Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA) registered at Police Station Connaught Place, New Delhi. The said Mohar Singh Pehalwan filed an application being Crl. M (B) No. 1665/2006 in WP (Crl.) 45/2006 which was heard by a Division Bench of this Court where a request was made for grant of interim bail to said Mohar Singh Pehalwan to enable him to make arrangement for carrying out the Shobha Yatra and on his said request, the following order was passed by the Division Bench on 29.09.2006:

By this interim application, the petitioner, who is under detention in case registered vide FIR No. 521/2005 dated 13.9.2005 under Sections 186/353/411 IPC and 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act and 3(2) and 3(4) of MCOC Act registered at Police Station Connaught Place, New Delhi, seeks interim bail to participate in the `Shobha Yatra' scheduled on 7th October, 2006 on the occasion of the Birth anniversary of Lord Maharishi Valmiki. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the President of the said Maharishi Valmiki Janmotsav Committee (Regd.) Delhi Pradesh and his presence is required for organizing the `Yatra' and for its successful conclusion.

We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of the application as also Ms. Mukta Gupta, learned standing counsel for the State in opposition. Learned Counsel for the State relied on the provisions of Section 21(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA) in opposing the bail application. Having heard the counsel and considering the period of detention and relevant and attendant circumstances, we direct that the petitioner be taken in custody on 7th October, 2006 for participating in the `Yatra' and brought back the same day. The Police escort may be in plain clothes.

6. In view of the above, no doubt is left in my mind in holding that the respondents' action in declining permission to the petitioner to take out Shobha Yatra was fully justified and the said administrative action of the respondents hardly calls for any judicial review in exercise of writ jurisdiction on criminal side by this Court. In case the parties have any dispute regarding their respective rights to administer the affairs of Maharishi Valmiki Janmotsav Committee (Regd.) Delhi Pradesh, they can get it settled in appropriate proceedings before the competent Court.

7. This writ petition is devoid of any merit and is, therefore, dismissed.

8. Order dusty.