Gauhati High Court
PIL/64/2023 on 19 October, 2023
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010197042023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : PIL/64/2023
RANA SAIDUR ZAMAN,
SON OF ALHAZ RAHMAN ALI, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO.62, RAHMAN
MANSION, SOUTH SARANIA, P.O. ULUBAI, DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M),
ASSAM, GUWAHATI- 781007.
-VERSUS -
1.THE UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION, RAJIV
GANDHI BHAVAN, NEAR SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT, NEW DELHI- 11003.
2:THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
BY ITS CHAIRMAN RAJIV GANDHI BHAWN
NEAR SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT NEW DELHI- 1100013
3:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION
RAJIV GANDHI BHAWN
NEAR SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT NEW DELHI- 1100013
4:THE REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
REGIONAL HEADQUARTER, NORTH-EAST REGION
LOKOPRIYA GOPINATH BORDOLOI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
GUWAHATI- 781005
5:THE AIRPORT DIRECTOR,
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA LOKOPRIYA GOPINATH BORDOLOI
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, GUWAHATI- 781015
6:GENERAL MANAGER, AERO
NORTH EAST REGION, AIRPORTS AUTHORITY INDIA
REGIONAL HEADQUARTER, NORTH EASTERN REGION
GBI AIRPORT GUWAHATI, ASSAM- 78101
Page No.# 2/5
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rana Saidur Zaman, Petitioner-in-person.
For the Respondent(s) : Ms. B. Devi, Advocate on behalf of Mr. S.P. Choudhury,
Advocate on behalf of respondent No.1.
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE
19.10.2023
Styling this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
be one filed in public interest, the petitioner-in-person seeks a direction to the
respondents to set up a dedicated prayer room in the precincts of the Lokpriya
Gopinath Bordoloi International Airport, Guwahati.
The petitioner arguing the case in person has vehemently and fervently
urged that the passengers belonging to different religions, while travelling
through Guwahati Airport, are not having access to any proper prayer room
facility which exists in various other airports across the country like Delhi
International Airport, Mumbai International Airport, Mangaloroo Airport, Agartala
Airport etc.
The petitioner placed reliance on the judgments rendered by Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in the cases of the Durgah Committee, Ajmer Vs. Syed Hussain
Ali and Ors., reported in 1961 AIR 1402 and Ratilal Panachand Gandhi Vs.
State of Bombay and Ors., reported in AIR 1954 SC 388 and urged that Article
25 of the Constitution of India guarantees the freedom of conscience and right
to freely profess, practice and propagate religion not merely to the citizens of
India but to every person.
Page No.# 3/5
He also referred to Article 26 of the Constitution of India and urged that
the Constitution has guaranteed any religious denomination or section of it, the
right to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes
and to manage in its own way, all affairs in the matters of religion. He thus
urged that the people following all religions have a right to seek a direction
upon the respondents to establish a dedicated prayer room in the precincts of
Lokpriya Gopinath Bordoloi International Airport, Guwahati so as to facilitate the
fundamental right of offering prayer.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced
by the petitioner-in-person and have gone through the pleadings of the writ
petition and so also the precedents cited by him.
At the outset, we may note that in the judgment of Ratilal Panachand
Gandhi (supra), relied upon by the petitioner-in-person, Hon'ble the Supreme
Court clearly laid down that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, rights
are given to such denominations or a section of it to acquire and own movable
and immovable properties and to administer such properties in accordance with
law.
We are of the firm view that Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of
India give freedom to people from a particular denomination to profess a
particular religion and to acquire movable and immovable properties and to
administer such properties in accordance with law. However, such rights cannot
be stretched to the extent that such denomination can demand setting up of a
dedicated prayer facility in a public place like an airport.
The claim of the petitioner that prayer rooms are provided in some of the
airports across the country and thus a similar facility should also be directed to
Page No.# 4/5
be set up in the precincts of Lokpriya Gopinath Bordoloi International Airport,
Guwahati does not impress this Court even for a moment.
The background facts in which prayer rooms facilities referred to above
came to be established have not been placed on record of the writ petition.
We feel that no litigant can be permitted to seek a direction upon the
Government to establish a dedicated place for professing religious practices in
an airport.
Thus, by not providing a similar facility at the precincts of Lokpriya
Gopinath Bordoloi International Airport, Guwahati, no fundamental right of the
petitioner is being breached.
It is in the domain of the Government or the Airport Authority of India to
take a decision whether particular kind of facilities are required to facilitate the
people accessing the airport, more so, when the plea is for a religious facility.
The High Court, while exercising the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction
conferred upon it by Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot be asked to
interfere with any such policy decisions of the Government.
At this stage, the petitioner prayed that he may be allowed to approach
the concerned authorities with a representation for ventilating his grievances.
We are of the firm opinion that petitioner has not been deterred from
filing such representation and no permission of the Court is required for the
same.
As a matter of fact, on going through the pleadings of the writ petition,
we do not find any such averments therein which can convince the Court that
the petitioner has been authorized/sponsored by the members of society at
Page No.# 5/5
large to plead their causes in this writ petition branded to be a Public Interest
Litigation.
Hence, we neither find merit in the claim laid by the petitioner-in-person
in this writ petition nor do we find that the writ petition espouses any public
cause so as to grant the relief sought for.
Hence, the instant writ petition is dismissed as being devoid of merit.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
