Ahead of Ganesh Chaturthi festivities, the Bombay High Court has dismissed the plea filed by a former Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) corporator seeking to organise Ganpati immersion in a private artificial pond at a municipal garden at Ghatkopar.A division bench of Justices GS Patel and Kamal Khata observed,“No person, let alone a Mandal, has any fundamental — or any other — right...
Ahead of Ganesh Chaturthi festivities, the Bombay High Court has dismissed the plea filed by a former Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) corporator seeking to organise Ganpati immersion in a private artificial pond at a municipal garden at Ghatkopar.
A division bench of Justices GS Patel and Kamal Khata observed,
“No person, let alone a Mandal, has any fundamental — or any other — right to privately create an immersion pond in a public park maintained by the Municipal Corporation. That permission is required, and that this is in the discretion of the Municipal Corporation, is not just undeniable, but is not disputed.”
“Private religious sentiments, no matter from what quarter they come, cannot prevail over the much wider concerns of civic governance,” the court added.
Shri Durga Parmeshwari Seva Mandal, an organization led by former NCP corporator from Ghatkopar Rakhee Jadhav approached the High Court for organising immersion at the Acharya Atre Maidan. She challenged a letter issued to her by the corporation refusing permission.
She accused one Balachandra Shirsat for refusal of permission. He had written to Minister Magal Prabhat Lodha against granting her permission and the letter was acted on, she claimed.
At the outset BMC’s ‘N’ Ward through advocate Purnima Kantharia clarified that the immersion pond at Acharya Atre Maidan in Ghatkopar (East) would be provisioned and made available by the Municipal Corporation itself for the forthcoming Ganpati immersion or visarjan, therefore the refusal to the petitioner.
The court found the statement to be fair and noted that all these are matters of civic and municipal administration and should not be left to private parties at all.
Court also disapproved of allegations made against the minister without making him a party.
“What we are concerned with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is judicial review of administrative action. It must therefore be shown that the impugned municipal action is somehow vulnerable either for a procedural irregularity or on account of being arbitrary, unreasonable or in violation of some fundamental or other legal right,” the order read.
The court said it wouldn’t be able to interfere even if the Municipal Corporation was to say that in a particular area no immersion pond could be permitted at all for reasons of civic administration (public health, hygiene, and so forth).
Counsels – Advocate Aniruddha Joshi for the petitioner
GP Purnima Kantharia with Kunal Waghmare for the Respondent-BMC
Advocate Amogh Singh, Rahul Arora and Jeet Gandhi for Balachandra Shirsat