Disposed

Kailas S/O Digambar Ulemale and Others v. the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Home Department, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC9 Oct 2015WP/799/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that the petitioners' apprehension regarding the denial of DJ sound system permission during Navratri Mahotsav was misplaced because the State had undertaken to consider applications. The writ petitions were disposed of with a direction to the State to consider applications legally.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent State to consider applications for permission to play D.J. Sound System, if made, in accordance with the law and grant permission subject to statutory conditions.

Kailas S/O Digambar Ulemale and Others… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

WP762-15&ors.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

¶4

Criminal Writ Petition No.762 of 2015

¶5

(Pramod Digambar Mulatkar and ors. .vs. The State of Maharashtra through

¶6

its Secretary and others.) with

¶7

Criminal Writ Petition No.763 of 2015

¶8

(Jitendra Jawaharsingh Baghel and ors. .vs. The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary and others.)

¶9

with

¶10

Criminal Writ Petition No.799 of 2015

¶11

(Kailas s/o Digambar Ulemale and ors. .vs. The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary and others.) with

¶12

Criminal Writ Petition No.800 of 2015

¶13

(Ganesh Gajanan Ghatol and ors. .vs. The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary and others.)

¶14

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders

¶15

Mr. S.A. Chaudhari, Advocate for Petitioners in all writ petitions. Mrs. K.S. Joshi, A.P.P. For Respondents in all writ petitions.

¶16

CORAM : B.R. Gavai & Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. DATED : October 9, 2015.

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the objection regarding deficit court fees would be removed within a period of one week.

¶18

The petitions have been filed on an apprehension that the respondents-authorities would not consider the applications for grant of permission to play D.J. Sound System in the ensuing Navratri Mahotsav.

¶19

It is the contention of the petitioners that the District Superintendent of Police, Akola in a press conference has declared that no such permission for

¶20

¶21

WP762-15&ors.odt

¶22

playing D.J. Sound System would be granted in the ensuing Navratri Mahotsav. It is submitted that this would affect the fundamental rights of the petitioners to perform their religious rites.

¶23

Mrs. Joshi, learned APP relying on the affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents states that insofar as Akola district is concerned, the applications have been received from the persons who would like to play D.J. Sound System. She submits that such applications would be considered in accordance with the law and the eligible persons would be granted permission to play D.J. Sound System subject to the conditions as are prescribed under the statutory provisions.

¶24

Mrs. Joshi submits that insofar as Amravati district is concerned, no one has made an application and as such there is no question of grant of permission to such person.

¶25

Since the State has itself made a statement that the State would consider the applications of the persons and grant permission to eligible persons for playing D.J. Sound System, we find that the apprehension expressed by the petitioners is totally misplaced. The State would be bound by what is stated in the affidavit and not something which is reported in the newspaper.

¶26

We, therefore, dispose of the petitions with a direction to the respondent-State to consider the applications of the petitioners, if made, in accordance with the law and grant such permission subject to conditions as are prescribed under the Statute or the

¶27

¶28

WP762-15&ors.odt

¶29

Rules framed thereunder. Needless to state that if any of the person who has been granted permission is found to be not acting in accordance with it, the State would always be at liberty to take such steps as are permissible in law.

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

halwai

Kailas S/O Digambar Ulemale and Others v. the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Home Department, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailas S/O Digambar Ulemale and Others v. the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Home Department, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sachin Dharmdas Khobragde and Anothers Vs Food Safety and Standard Authority, through Its Chief Executive Officer New Delhi and Others

Praful Gopaldas Agrawal Vs Union of India, through Its Secretary, Depat. of Health, New Delhi and Others

Kishorekumar S/O Jamunashankar Tiwari Vs State of Maha. through Principal Secretary, Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department

Ganesh S/O Gajanan Ghatol and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Home Department, Mumbai and Others

Jitendra Jawaharsingh Baghel and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Others

Pramod S/O Digambar Mulatkar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Home Department, Mumbai and Others