already invested Rs. 21 lakhs. As per email, the petitioner's budget is Rs. 35 lakhs and the only purpose of petitioner as can be inferred from the argument of learned advocate Mr. Vizoda is to make money out of event even at the cost of public health. Such approach on the part of companies like petitioner is not required to be encouraged. For petitioner, event management is only one of the business and he is mainly in the business of Diamond Jewellery. So it is not the case that the petitioner is a comman man or a company which is struggling for its existence or survival. Had that been the case, the things would have been considered in little different perception. Though, it was put to the petitioner that when the schools are also running with so many restrictions, why such large public gathering for the purpose of entertainment is required. Learned advocate for the petitioner had no answer to that and the only reply or argument that was canvassed by this Court was in respect of monetary aspect. Such approach is not required to be encouraged by entertaining such petitions. It is also pertinent to note that all these arguments were made by the learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner who has not even deposited the demand draft of Rs. 42,480/- and Rs. 5,45,000/- which are prepared by the petitioner but never deposited with the respondent - Surat Municipal Corporation.
