LI Network
Published on: 12 September 2023 at 14:20 IST
The Bombay High Court, responding to a writ petition by Shri Durga Parmeshwari Seva Mandal, has issued a ruling stating that no individual or organization has the right to privately establish an immersion pond for Ganpati idols within a public park managed by the Municipal Corporation.
The court emphasized that private religious sentiments must not supersede civic governance.
The petitioners had approached the court seeking permission to create a private immersion pond for the upcoming Ganesh Chaturthi festival. However, the Bombay High Court declined to intervene in the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation’s (BMC) decision, which denied the petitioners’ request to construct the said pond.
A Division Bench comprising Justice G.S. Patel and Justice Kamal Khata clarified that their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India pertained to judicial review of administrative actions.
They stressed that it must be demonstrated that the challenged municipal action was susceptible to procedural irregularities, arbitrariness, unreasonableness, or violations of fundamental or other legal rights.
The court underlined that no individual, including a Mandal, possesses any fundamental or other rights to privately establish an immersion pond in a publicly maintained park by the Municipal Corporation.
The court’s verdict asserted that regardless of the source, private religious sentiments could not take precedence over broader civic governance concerns.
Furthermore, the Bench stated that even if the Municipal Corporation were to prohibit immersion ponds in a specific area for reasons of public health, hygiene, or other civic administration concerns, the court could not interfere.
The petitioners alleged that the BMC’s refusal was selectively targeted at the Mandal following a representation made to the State Government Minister by a former corporator.
In response, the High Court held that such allegations of malice or mala fides must be independently substantiated and do not automatically establish malicious administrative action.
The Court acknowledged that politicians, as part of their responsibilities to the electorate, were entitled to receive and, if deemed appropriate, act on representations made by individuals.
The Court rejected the practice of pointing fingers at politicians in writ petitions to imply administrative actions driven by malice or mala fides.
The Court concluded by noting that the Municipal Corporation’s approach was sensible and emphasized that matters of civic and municipal administration should not be left to private parties. The judgment highlighted that each case must be evaluated on its merits, and there is no one-size-fits-all approach.
In its final decision, the Bombay High Court found no fault with the challenged order, stating that it was reasonable and proportional, effectively balancing private demands with civic governance considerations. Consequently, the court rejected the petition.
