Shri Ram Leela Samiti vs Dda And Ors.
2006 Latest Caselaw 1645 Del

JUDGMENT

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

1. The writ petitioner in these proceedings claims directions to the respondent, Delhi Development Authority (hereafter referred to as DDA) to grant permission to it for organizing and celebrating the Dussehra festival and Ram Lila between 11.9.2006 and 3.10.2006 on the land owned by it (i.e. DDA).

2. The petitioner, a registered society had applied for permission on 11.7.2006 for grant of permission to utilize vacant land in E.D. GTB Enclave, Dilshad Garden. The DDA asked the petitioner, on 27.7.2006 to furnish a copy of its registration certificate and copy of the receipt for the previous year. It is claimed that the copies were furnished on 31.7.2006.

3. The petitioners aver that as per its policy, the DDA allots or grants permission to celebrate Ram Lila and Dussehra Festival on first cum first serve basis and there is no strict rules framed for the purpose. It has been further averred that the DDA never accepted or rejected the application. The petitioner alleges that there is no hindrance for the grant of permission, and that a large ground of 30,000 Sq. ft is available out of which it has sought allotment only for 10,000 Sq. ft for which all the requisite formalities would be completed.

4. After issuance of notice DDA had sought time and filed its counter affidavit in which it avers that initially, one Shri Ram Lila Manch had approached it for allotment; upon it being asked to furnish a copy of the Registration Certificate, no objection certificate from the Resident Welfare Association of the Locality and copy of receipts of bookings of previous years, one Sh. Mohinder Sharma submitted the documents on 31.7.2006. This time, the application was on behalf of the petitioner Samiti, a registered society. It was accompanied by copy of a registration certificate. The DDA avers that the No Objection Certificate furnished was given by the Eastern Wing, Residents Welfare Association in favor of the Ram Lila Manch. As per its averments the petitioner did not fulfilll the criteria specified by the DDA and it was duly intimated about the request not being acceded to on 4.9.2006.

5. The DDA denies that as per its policy, allotment is given on first cum first basis. It is also further stated as follows:

It is stated that in the present case, Shri Adarsh Ram Lila Committee (Regd.) has been organizing Ram Lila at the land in question for the last several years. It is further stated that Shri Adarsh Ram Lila Committee (Regd.) had moved for the permission on 11th July 2006, whereas the petitioner i.e. Shri Ram Lila Samiti (Regd.) had moved for the permission on 31st July 2006 as a registered Samiti. The averments made in the paragraph under reply are absolutely false, wrong, incorrect and denied. It is denied that there is any collusion between the Delhi Development Authority and Shri Adarsh Ram Lila Committee (Regd.) as alleged in the paragraph under reply. It is stated that the necessary permission has already been granted to Shri Adarsh Ram Lila Committee (Regd.). The permission has been granted to Shri Adarsh Ram Lila Committee (Regd.) after getting the opinion of the Chief Engineer, Chief Legal Advisor etc. It is stated that the application of the petitioner stood rejected. It is stated that if the necessary permission is granted to the petitioner as well, it will lead to serious law and order problem as was also suggested by the Local Police to the Delhi Development Authority.

6. Mr. R.S. Juneja, learned Counsel submitted that the denial of permission and allotment was arbitrary and utterly malafide. He submitted that the confusion sought to be projected about the identity of the applicant was unwarranted, as the Society could not be registered as a Manch but as a Samiti in accordance with law. Counsel submitted that this aspect had been satisfactorily explained long ago to DDA, which had no justification in sleeping over the application, and coming forward with a false plea that allotment was declined on 4-9-2006. He further submitted that till date, that refusal letter had not been received by the petitioner.

7. It was also submitted that the whole endeavor of the DDA was to deprive the Petitioner,the right to carry on its legitimate cultural and religious activities, guaranteed by Article 25 of the Constitution of India. It was also submitted that the Petitioner comprised of individuals who disassociated themselves from the Shri Adarsh Ram Lila Committee which had been involved in financial irregularities, leading to widespread discontent. Lastly, it was submitted that the park/open ground in question can conveniently accommodate two functions one of the Petitioner, and the other of Adarsh Ram Lila Committee.

8. Mr. Pawan Mathur, learned Counsel for the DDA, submitted that even if the initial confusion about identity of the applicant (ie Manch or Samiti) were to be ignored, and the Petitioner were to be treated as an applicant, there was no inherent right vesting in an individual or body of persons to claim allotments in such cases. The open spaces and parks are meant to be used primarily for the purpose, and their use for social or religious/cultural activity can be only as an exception, for a limited period. No one can insist and claim such allotment.

9. Learned Counsel further submitted that the application of the Shri Adarsh Ram Lila Committee had been received on 11.7.2006, complete in all particulars. Even otherwise, there was no policy of first com first servedfollowed by DDA. The other Committee had been holding similar functions for several previous years, and the Petitioner Samiti was a breakaway faction. As per its assessment, the plot could not support two such functions, and there was a likelihood of a law and order problem arising in such eventuality.

10 It is evident from the factual narrative that the short controversy requiring determination is whether the refusal to grant permission/allotment to hold religio-cultural functions like Ram Lila or Dusshera, on public lands, is arbitrary or unreasonable.

11. The facts are not many; the land, for which allotment/permission is sought is a large public ground in GTB Enclave. Even as per a copy of the letter written by Sh. Mohinder Sharma on 11.7.2006, for last 15 years permission have been granted. It is also undisputed that the petitioner which applied, was registered only in the year 2006. Without going into the controversy about the confusion of identity, the question is whether in such circumstances the petitioner insist that allotment has to be given to it. The Shri Adarsh Ram Lila Committee had been carrying on Dusshera Mela for the last many years. Members of the petitioners, for reasons best known to them resigned or disassociated themselves from that Society and formed the petitioner. As per the DDA's averments, the previous record of the Society also appears to be a relevant criteria.

12. During the course of hearing, learned Counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out any provision of law or administrative circular which conferred rights upon an individual or a body of individuals associating themselves together, to claim allotment or permission for use of public lands as a matter of right. The open ground in question is in the nature of public lands meant to be used by all members of the public and residents of the locality. The DDA as its owner and custodian, is obliged to ensure its proper maintenance and upkeep. In a strict sense, such lands cannot be used for any other purpose. It is only by virtue of orders of Supreme Court and this Court that such open areas can be used restrictively for social gatherings and religious/cultural functions. Indeed the order the Supreme Court M.C. Mehta's case envisioned decrease in the use of such open areas and creation of other spaces for that purpose. The order of the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (dated 10.12.1996, in WP.4677/1985) had directed that the number of parks indicated by the local Municipal Authorities in Delhi, used for marriages etc. could be reduced b y 30% by June 30, 1997 and further reduced by another 20%, by 31st December, 1997. Though the order mentioned use of parks for purposes of social functions, the intention is clear; community spaces and lands meant for use by all concerned, cannot be parceled out and that such existing practices were to be progressively phased out That order was followed by this Court in the judgment of the Division Bench reported as NDSE Housing Society Residents Welfare Association v. DDA .

13. The DDA's stand is that the petitioners cannot be allotted the plot because another association which has been continuously holding such activities, namely Shri Adarsh Ram Lila Committee has been given permission for the current year. Its further defense is that it would not be possible to grant permission to the petitioner in the same locality besides leading to law and order problem.

14. It is well established that the right to form an association for a common object, guaranteed under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India, does not extend to a guarantee for the fulfilllment of that objective ( Ref. All India Bank Employees' Association v. National Tribunal AIR 1962 SC 17). Therefore, the right of the individual members of the petitioner to associate and form a society, is guaranteed; however that right does not extend to an entitlement that the objectives, such as right to be allotted a plot, or permission to hold Ramlila, is guaranteed. As far as the issue of freedom of religion is concerned, without delving too deep into the issue, it may be noticed that Article 25(1) of the Constitution, which spells out the right, is itself is subject to public order, morality, health and other provisions of Part III of the Constitution. In Church of God (Full Gospel) in India v. KKR Majestic Colony Welfare Association , the Supreme Court had ruled that regulation of use of public speaker systems, to minimize noise pollution and resultant nuisance, cannot be characterized as negation of the right to practice one's religion.

15. In this case, the DDA has already permitted the holding of Ramlila to another association, which has been carrying on that function, hitherto. Its justification in denying the petitioner's request is, inter alia, that the other association has been holding it for long, it has the approval of the Resident's Welfare Association, and that it had applied earlier. It has also averred that having regard to the nature of the public ground, it would not be feasible to permit two identical cultural functions, and it might lead to a law and order problem. These considerations, in my view, cannot be called as arbitrary or unreasonable. The petitioners cannot found their action on any express right; they are really seeking distribution of largesse. The justification of DDA in declining the request has to stand the test of fairness and non-arbitrariness. As held earlier, the rationale for declining permission cannot be termed arbitrary or unreasonable.

16. In view of the foregoing reasons, the petition has to fail; it is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.