Dismissed

Sri Awadh Ram Leela Committee Vashnu Mata Mandir & Anr. v. Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Delhi HC9 Aug 2024LPA/769/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellants challenged the dismissal of a writ petition seeking extension of Ram Leela ground. The Court held appellants have no fundamental right to insist on a specific land and dismissed the appeal as appellants failed to prove respondent's failure to perform public duty.

What did the court decide?

Appeal and pending application dismissed; no additional land granted to appellants.

Sri Awadh Ram Leela Committee Vashnu Mata Mandir & Anr… — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~21

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- LPA 769/2024 & C.M.No.45614/2024

¶4

SRI AWADH RAM LEELA COMMITTEE VASHNU MATA MANDIR & ANR. .....Appellants Through: Ms.Sanya Dua with Ms.Yashi Bajpai and Mr.Samarth Sharma, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms.Manika Tripathy, standing counsel for DDA with Mr.Ashutosh Kaushik and Mr.Rony John, Advocates. Mr.Mukesh Gupta, standing counsel with Mr.Shashi Gupta and Mr.Arnav Gupta, Advocates for MCD. Mr.Rahul, Legal Assistant, DDA.

¶7

% Date of Decision: 09^th August, 2024

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

¶9

JUDGMENT

¶10

MANMOHAN, ACJ : (ORAL)

¶11

Present letters patent appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 15^th July, 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) 12779/2023, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants, seeking extension of Ram Leela ground to seven acres and connecting the said ground with the main road of Mukundpur, was dismissed on the ground that appellants have failed

¶12

Signature Not Verified

¶13

Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:10.08.2024 23:10:22

¶14

LPA 769/2024

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

to prove that the respondents failed to perform their public duty.

¶17

The appellants are aggrieved by the fact that the area currently allotted to them by the MCD on license basis for organising, holding and staging Ram Leela is small, inconvenient and not easily accessible.

¶18

Learned counsel for the appellants states that the right to organise Ram Leela is a fundamental right and protected under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. She contends that the area presently allotted by the MCD restrains the appellants from exercising their fundamental right. She states that prior to 2004, the area utilised by the appellants was adjoining the main road of Mukundpur colony. She however states that the present area allotted by the MCD is away from the main road and as such, not easily accessible. She contends that the learned Single Judge failed to consider that the issue of accessibility has exacerbated due to rise in the population of Mukundpur colony since 2004. She states that holding Ram Leela at the same venue will disrupt traffic, cause safety as well as law and order issues.

¶19

Having perused the paper book, this Court finds that the appellants have admitted before the learned Single Judge that MCD provides a portion of 2½ acres land to the appellants for organising Ram Leela and that the adjoining land does not belong to DDA or MCD, but belongs to the forest department. Therefore, as no other land is available, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the prayer for grant of additional land to the appellants.

¶20

This Court is further of the view that that the appellants have no fundamental right to insist on organising Ram Leela on a particular land or in the vicinity of a particular colony. No judicial direction and/or order can be issued to the statutory authority to acquire land for the purpose of

¶21

Signature Not Verified

¶22

Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:10.08.2024 23:10:22

¶23

LPA 769/2024

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

organising any religious event.

¶26

This Court is also in agreement with the learned Single Judge that the appellants have failed to show that the respondents failed to perform their public duty

¶27

Accordingly, the present appeal, along with pending application, being bereft of merit is dismissed.

¶28

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶29

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J

¶30

AUGUST 9, 2024 KA

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT LPA 769/2024 Signing Date:10.08.2024 23:10:22

¶33

Page 3 of 3

Sri Awadh Ram Leela Committee Vashnu Mata Mandir & Anr. v. Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Awadh Ram Leela Committee Vashnu Mata Mandir & Anr. v. Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.

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

S S Tanwar Vs Registrar Cooperative Societies & Ors.

Alok Rai Vs Registrar of Co. Operative Societies & Anr.

Ms Jbmd Enterprises through Its Partner Deepak Kumar Thakur Vs the Sr Dy Cgda an & Ors.

Telecom Watchdog through Its Secretary Mr. Vikram Mittal Vs Union of India through Its Secretary Department of Telecommunications & Ors.

Quadrant Tele Ventures Limited Vs Telecom Regulatory Authority of India & Anr.

M/S S Veer and Company Graduate Partnership Concern and Anr. Vs Union of India, Ministry of Railways, Railway Board & Ors.