Disposed

Mrs. Sana Yusuf Baugwala v. Union F India and Anr.

Bombay HC9 Feb 2009WP/371/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court examined a writ petition seeking to quash a naval order prohibiting civilians from attending a religious Urs at a Dargah in a restricted area. The court held it not its role to act as an appellate authority on security matters but directed the Flag Officer Commanding to hear the petitioner and decide the application of security safeguards against religious harmony on an objective ba

What did the court decide?

The Flag Officer Commanding is directed to hear the Petitioner forthwith to decide the relief objectively, ensuring security safeguards while considering religious harmony.

Mrs. Sana Yusuf Baugwala Vs Union F India and Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

O. O. C. J.

¶4

WRIT PETITION (LODG.) NO.259 OF 2009

¶5

Mrs.Sana Yusuf Baugwala Vs. Union of India Area Personnel & Admin. Officer for Flag Officer Commanding Headquarters, Maharashtra & Gujarat and anther

¶6

..Petitioner.

¶7

..Respondent.

¶8

Mr. S.M. Gorwadkar i/b Mr.R.V.Pawaskar for the Petitioner.

¶9

Mr. R.B. Raghuvanshi, Addl. Solicitor General with Mr. H. K. Vardhan for the Union of India.

¶10

Ms. L. Calcuttawala, AGP for Respondent No.2.

¶11

CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 9^th February, 2009.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

The Petitioner who claims to be the daughter of a retired

¶14

Naval Officer and a practicing lawyer has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing of the order dated 4^th February, 2009, Exhibit A to the Petition passed by

¶15

the Respondents and further that the Respondents be directed to

¶16

permit the civilians to attend the Urs of Siddi Baba at Dargah situated

¶17

¶18

at 17 Robert House Complex, Next to US Club, R.C. Church, Colaba, Mumbai 400 005 on 8^th and 9^th February, 2009.

¶19

The Petitioner submits that the Dargah was open for public and for last number of years they were allowed to attend the Urs which is a religious function at Dargah. However, all of a sudden the impugned order was passed prohibiting the civilians from going to Dargah and performing the religious function. During the course of arguments Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that for a number of years they were permitted to perform the ceremonies at Dargah and even produced a letter on record dated 29^th April, 2008 vide which the Petitioner was granted permission to start the structural repairs of the Dargah. On 29^th January, 2009 the Petitioner is stated to have sent a letter to the Respondents which is in fact referred to in the impugned order. According to the Petitioner the order clearly infringes Articles 19 and 25 of the Constitution. To treat any religion and to participate in the religious activities is the fundamental and constitutionally protected right of the Petitioner and the order of the Respondent is entirely arbitrary. On

¶20

¶21

the other hand though no reply has been filed, counsel appearing for the Union of India stated that it is for security reasons that they have passed the order. It is further stated that it is a restricted area and Dargah is situated in the middle of the Naval Command Area and for security reasons it is not practicable and possible for the authorities to permit the entry of civilians at large to that restricted area.

¶22

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties we are of the considered view that it is not for this Court to sit as an appellate authority to examine the matters relating to maintenance of security and protection relatable to the restricted areas. But at the same time we cannot also overlook the fact that this is a Dargah where people were permitted access in the past. The prayer in the writ petition is limited to the extent that for two days of Urs to be performed at Dargah the civilians should be permitted to attend. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner stated that even few persons after their due verification of identity and security clearance may be permitted to perform the ceremony for two hours on both these days late in the afternoon. He further stated that this has happened in the

¶23

¶24

past. The order placed by Counsel appearing for the Respondents on record shows that permission to these areas is always restricted and can be granted by the competent authority in certain cases. The impugned order dated 4^th February, 2009 was passed by the Commander, Area Personnel & Admin. Officer, for Flag Officer Commanding.

¶25

Certain facts which probably were not placed before the authorities concerned for their consideration have been noticed by us during the course of hearing of this Petition. Without intending to interfere with the order of the Respondents dated 4^th February, 2009, we direct the Flag Officer Commanding to hear the Petitioner forthwith and examine their relief in the circumstances indicated and take a decision objectively to ensure safeguards of security while looking into the religious harmony as such. In the event the Flag Officer Commanding is not available, the CO. Kunjali would hear the Petitioner. The Petitioner to approach the said authorities forthwith.

¶26

¶27

In the circumstances and the facts above noticed, we

¶28

dispose of the Petition with the above directions.

¶29

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶30

DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

Mrs. Sana Yusuf Baugwala v. Union F India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Sana Yusuf Baugwala v. Union F India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devendra S. Doctor Vs Union of India and Ors.

Devendra S. Doctor Vs Union of India and Ors.

Bombay Municipal Corpn. of Gr. Bombay Vs Bawa Birsingh and Ors.

Yogesh Nandu Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Abu Asim Azmi Vs Union of India and Ors.

Kitkat (S.R.a.) Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs the Chief Executive Officers, Slum Rehabilitation Authority and 6 Others