Disposed

Shri. Mahesh Bajrang Gadekar v. Siddheshwar Devasthan Panch Committee and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Jan 2016PIL/1/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Public interest litigation challenging potential mismanagement and lack of safety measures for Siddheshwar Yatra. The Bench issued directives to police for law enforcement, installation of CCTV cameras, and adherence to the revised collector's action plan.

What did the court decide?

Directives to the Commissioner of Police to deploy law enforcement, install CCTV cameras, and directions to the Collector to implement the revised action plan with cooperation from trustees.

Shri. Mahesh Bajrang Gadekar Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

PIL 1.16.sxw

¶2

1/4

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 1 OF 2016

¶5

Mr. Mahesh Bajrang Gadekar

¶6

... Petitioner

¶7

V/s.

¶8

Siddheshwar Devasthan Panch Committee & ors. ... Respondent

¶9

Mr. U.R. Mankapure i/b. Mr. Vinod P. Sangavikar for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. A.A. Kumbhakoni, Senior Counsel i/b. Ritesh Thobde for respondent no.1.

¶11

Mr. A.B. Vagyani, Government Pleader a/w. Mr. Vikas Mali, AGP for the State.

¶12

Mr. R.P. Sabban, special Counsel a/w. Mr. D.G. Dhanure for respondent no.3 Corporation.

¶13

Mr. Shahaji Pawar, S.D.O. Solapur and Incident Commander, Disaster management, Action plan present in Court.

¶14

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND A.A. SAYED, JJ .

¶15

P.C.

¶16

The petitioner's grievance is that the devotees participating in Sidheshwar Yatra would assemble at Home Maiden, Solapur city between 1^st January, 2016 to 30^th January, 2016. The peak days during which the devotees are expected to assemble in a very large number

¶17

PIL 1.16.sxw

¶18

2/4

¶19

(around five lakhs) would be from 12^th January, 2016 to 16^th January, 2016 according to petitioner's calculation. The petitioner's apprehension is that contrary to the Government Circular dated 7^th March, 2005 on the action plan framed by the Collector, Solapur, the trustees permitted thousands of stall holders to erect their stalls on the emergency routes prescribed by the Collector. It is submitted that elected representatives are threatening Collector to change the plan otherwise to face consequences. In such an atmosphere the petitioner apprehends that the Collector would not be in a position to effectively administer and regulate the assembly of lacs of people during of month of January particularly during 12^th January, 2016 to 16^th January, 2016. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred to the Circular, Action Plan and newspaper cuttings in support of his submissions.

¶20

Learned Government Pleader Shri Vagyani has placed on record the minutes drawn on 9^th December, 2015 signed by the Collector. The Dy. Collector, Solapur has instructed the Government Pleader during the hearing. The State had intervened in the matter and after considering the suggestions from various sections of Society and the administration, the Collector has re-drawn the action plan. Two separate routes are now prescribed according to learned Government Pleader which could be used as emergency exit routes. The learned Government Pleader submits that the Commissioner of Police, the Corporation authorities and Collector would take every possible steps to regulate the Yatra in a proper, disciplined manner. The administration will take care of the basic amenities to be provided by the establishment at the site.

¶21

3/4 PIL 1.16.sxw

¶22

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 Committee submits that the petitioner is personally aggrieved as his unauthorised structure was demolished few years back by the respondent no.1 authorities. This statement is disputed by the Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the trustees will take all possible steps to regulate the Yatra in a proper manner by keeping in view the facilities to be provided to the devotees in the month of January 2016. It is submitted that since last 800 years the Yatra is being conducted in a peaceful manner and no untoward incident has taken place so far. Therefore, the learned Counsel submits that apprehensions are unfounded and does not call for any consideration by this Court.

¶23

The Counsel appearing for the Corporation submits that basic amenities would be provided to the devotees. Steps would be taken to keep the surrounding clean. Arrangements would be made to provide drinking water.

¶24

We find that the administration is taking care to regulate the Yatra in an appropriate manner. We issue following directions:

¶25

i) We direct the Commissioner of Police to make adequate arrangements by deploying law enforcing agencies to regulate the Yatra.

¶26

ii) At strategic locations the CCTV cameras be installed as per the plan.

¶27

4/4 PIL 1.16.sxw

¶28

iii) We direct the Collector to take appropriate steps consequent to the action plan which has now been redrafted/revised. The Collector is entitled to take appropriate decision in consultation with the Commissioner of Police and the Divisional Commissioner of Pune to take appropriate decision to met out any exigencies developing at any moment during the Siddheshwar Yatra.

¶29

iv) We expect the trustees and elected representatives to co-operate with the administration.

¶30

With aforesaid observations and directions, Petition is disposed of.

¶31

(A.A. SAYED, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

¶32

L.S. Panjwani, P.S.

Shri. Mahesh Bajrang Gadekar v. Siddheshwar Devasthan Panch Committee and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Mahesh Bajrang Gadekar v. Siddheshwar Devasthan Panch Committee and Ors.

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

Mr. Shamim Ismail Khan and Anr. Vs Union of India through the General Manager, Central Railway Administration and Ors.

Syscom Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Babu Kalappa Jagtap Vs the State of Maharashtra and 4 Others

Ramesh S/O Purushottamrao Mahajan Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Deptt. of Business Energy and Labour, Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Dr. Ashok Madhavdas Parwani Vs Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner and Ors.

Pavan Rahul Parmeshware Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mehmood Iqrar Shaikh Vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and 5 Others

Shri. Balasaheb Baburao Jambhulkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Anil Narsing Kale Vs Sub-Divisional Engineer and Ors.

Mr. Mahesh Shivajirao Kale and Anr. Vs Sub-Divisional Engineer and Ors.

Mr. Santosh Padurang Upadhye Vs Sub-Divisional Engineer and Ors.

Shri. Mahesh Bajrang Gadekar Vs Siddheshwar Devasthan Panch Committee and Ors.

Sudeep Manoharlal Tandon Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mrs. Kanchandevi Subhash Singh and Anr. Vs Education Inspector, (Sec) Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and Anr.