Jagannathpur Mandir Nyas ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 2298 Jhar

                               [1]


    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                      W.P.(PIL) No.2392 of 2021
   Jagannathpur Mandir Nyas Samittee, office situated at Jagannath
   Mandir, Jagannathpur, Post and Police Station Dhurwa, District
   Ranchi through its authorized representative Lal Chittranjan Nath
   Shahdeo, Aged about 48 years, Son of Thakur Radheshyam Nath
   Shahdeo, Resident of Jagannathpur, P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S.-Dhurwa,
   District-Ranchi.
                                                          . ... Petitioner
                                     Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O.
   and P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
3. The   Secretary,    Disaster      Management   Division,   Jharkhand,
   Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Project Bhawan, P.O. and P.S.-
   Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
4. The Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Jharkhand,
   Ranchi, Project Bhawan, P.O. and P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
5. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, P.O.-G.P.O. Ranchi, P.S.-
   Kotwali, District-Ranchi.
6. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi, P.O.-G.P.O. Ranchi,
   P.S.-Kotwali, District-Ranchi.
7. The Jharkhand State Religious Board of Trust having its office at
   Birsa Jail Compound, P.O.-Lalpur, P.S.-Lalpur, District-Ranchi.
8. The Administrator, Jharkhand State Religious Board of Trust having
   its office at Birsa Jail Compound, P.O.-Lalpur, P.S.-Lalpur, District-
   Ranchi.
                                                         ... Respondents
                                     -------

CORAM :             HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
                                 -------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG-II

-----------------------------

[2]

ORAL ORDER

02/Dated 09th July, 2021

1. Matter has been heard through video conferencing and there is no

complaint whatsoever regarding audio and/or visual quality.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India on behalf of the members of Jagannathpur

Mandir Nyas Samittee by way of public interest litigation inter alia

for the following reliefs:

"a. For issuance of an appropriate direction(s)/order(s)/writ(s), particularly, a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing upon the Respondent nos. 2 to 6, to allow the Petitioner Trust Committee to perform/celebrate the ritual/festival of Lord Jagannath Rath Yatra scheduled on 12.07.2021 and 20.07.2021 with COVID-19 appropriate Standard operating procedures (SOPs) absolutely in the manner the Rath Yatra at Puri has been ordered to be conducted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

b. For issuance of an appropriate direction(s)/order(s)/writ(s), particularly, a writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding upon the Respondent State Authorities to either carve out an exception of and from the order issued vide memo no.375 dated 30.06.2021 (Annexure-3) issued by the Secretary, Disaster Management Division, Jharkhand or to issue separate office order for arranging a restricted procession as prayed for in above para (a) so that the situals of Rath Yatra may be performed with all precautions, restrictions and care as ordered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Odisha Vikas Parishad v. Union of India reported in (2020) 7 SCC 264.

c. For issuance of an appropriate direction(s)/order(s)/writ(s), particularly, a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing upon the Respondent nos.2 to 6 either individually or jointly as the case may be to frame the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to be adopted for organizing the chariot procession i.e. Rath Yatra of Lord Jaggannath, including the safeguards to be adopted by the Petitioners for conducting the procession."

[3]

3. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner

submits that there is a Temple situated in the district of Ranchi,

Jharkhand of Lord Jagannath having been established in the year

1691 and since then Rath Yatra festival is being celebrated every

year in the month of June/July and during this period, 10 days

Mela/Fair is also being organized and the same is concluded after

return of the Lord Jagannath to his home, similarly as the festival in

the Lord Jagannath Temple situated at Puri in being celebrated.

4. According to the petitioner, in the last year when COVID-19

pandemic was a new crises and not much was known about the

virus and the lockdown was being observed very strictly throughout

the country, even then the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Odisha

Vikash Parishad v. Union of India and Ors., (2020) 7 SCC 264

firstly directed for not holding the Rath Yatra rituals in Puri but

later vide its judgment dated 22.06.2020 reviewed the order and

allowed the Rath Yatra with COVID-19 appropriate conditions and

subject to some other conditions as laid down therein.

5. It has been submitted that similarly the Government of Gujarat

allowed the function/ritual of Rath Yatra in Jagannath Temple,

Ahmedabad in the year 2020 which was successfully performed by

following the necessary conditions as mandated by the

administration and this year also the same is going to be performed

with COVID-19 appropriate SOPs.

6. In the backdrop of this fact, pleading has been made that after

comparative analysis of the ritual which is performed in the Lord

Jagannath Temple at Puri in the State of Odisha, the distance to be [4]

covered by the chariot is approximately 03 kms while on the other

hand, the distance to be covered in the Rath Yatra of Lord

Jagannath in Ranchi, Jharkhand is less than 01 kms.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued guidelines in this regard for

performing rituals at Puri in the State of Orissa, thus, the same

relaxation ought to have been granted by the State of Jharkhand so

that the rituals of Lord Jagannath in the district of Ranchi be also

observed for which sewayat who are 61 in number are ready to

observe the SOPs.

8. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner

further submits while referring to the Standard Operating

Protocol/guidelines dated 30.06.2021 that restrictions have been

imposed for visitors to visit the religious places, however, the

religious places have been permitted to be opened as also all indoor

or outdoor congregations of more than 50 persons are prohibited in

the State including marriage and last rites related functions,

however, the petitioner's contention is that the State of Jharkhand

has put restrictions in congregations of more than 50 persons but

here in the Samittee, the number of sewayat are 61, as such, at least

that part of the guideline dated 30.06.2021, where the congregations

of more than 50 persons is prohibited, may be extended up to 61

persons.

9. Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned AAG-II appearing for the State of

Jharkhand has submitted by refuting the arguments advanced on

behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the

order passed by this Court pertaining to reopening of Maa [5]

Chhinnamastika Temple, popularly known as Rajrappa Mandir

situated in the district of Ramgarh, Jharkhand [Madhav Lal Singh

vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. {W.P.(PIL) No.2664 of 2020}]

wherein this Court has refused to issue any mandamus upon the

State, however, leaving such decision open to be taken by the

competent authority of the State Government, therefore, the instant

writ petition may also be disposed of in terms of the said order.

10. Mr. Sachin Kumar has also brought to the notice of this Court about

the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madan Patri

and Ors. vs. State of Orissa and Ors., [Special Leave to Appeal (C)

No.8394 of 2021] wherein the order passed by the High Court of

Orissa has been questioned by which the Rath Yatra was to be

conducted this year in Badadanda of Lord Jagannath Temple at Puri

and nowhere else in the State in the same manner as was done last

year. The aforesaid order of the High Court of Orissa has been

declined to be interfered with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

11. On this, Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner

has fairly submitted that similar direction as has been passed by this

Court in Madhav Lal Singh vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors.

(supra), may be passed.

12. This Court, having heard the learned counsel for the parties and

with their consent, is disposing of the instant writ petition by

directing the State to take its own decision with regard to the

grievance of the petitioner well before the Rath Yatra Puja.

However, while taking such decision, directions of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in this regard should be followed.

[6]

13. The State will take necessary measures without waiting for the copy

of the order.

14. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ

petition stands disposed of.

(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J.)

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Saurabh

N.A.F.R.