Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SUBOJONIN DURGOTSAV versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Subojonin Durgotsav v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. - 51402 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 16712 (12 October 2007)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Court No. 3

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 51402 of 2007.

Surbojonin Durgotsav. ...... ...... .... ...Petitioner.

Versus

State of U.P. and others. ....... ....... .... ...Respondents.

--------

Present:

(Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amitava Lala and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.P. Mehrotra)

Appearance

For the Petitioner : Sri O.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate,

Sri A.B. Sinha.

For the Respondents : Sri Ramanand Pandey, S.C.

--------

Amitava Lala, J.-- This writ petition has been made by the petitioner- Surbojonin Durgotsav Committee for the purpose of getting direction upon the respondents to accord/grant permission for performing Durga Pooja on the concerned park i.e. Model Town Park, Mohalla Pandu Nagar, Kanpur City, District Kanpur Nagar between 16th October, 2007 to 21st October, 2007. We find that upon making appropriate payments for the purpose of use of such park requisite receipts were granted. Now the petitioner has come with a plea that there is an objection on the part of the Nagar Nigam. The urgency has been shown by another Bench at the time of releasing the matter on 12th October, 2007 by saying that the same will be placed in the other list, if possible today, on the basis of the assignment of the Hon'ble Chief Justice. Assignment has already been made.

We have visualised the situation and find that if there is any hindrance, that will be taken care of and necessary permission as granted by the authority earlier will be done upon considering each and every pros and cons within a period of 48 hours from this date. We are not entering into merits and demerits of the matter. However, we are relying upon an order, which has been shown by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, dated 21st August, 2006 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41573 of 2006 (Model Town Nagrik Parishad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others). The relevant portion of the said order is quoted hereunder:

"Undoubtedly, the Court does not have the power to pass any order in contravention to the statutory provisions nor can it issue a direction restraining the authorities not to exercise the power conferred upon them under the Statute. Therefore, a direction can not be issued not to allot any Park for any purpose if this was made properly under the Act. However, the Prescribed Authority while granting the sanction must ensure that the allottee/user shall not use the Park or any part thereof in any manner whatsoever which may cause any detriment to it or change its permanent nature or destroy the flora thereof after the purpose/function is over. The allottee must ensure its cleanliness and restore any damages if made therein. The allotment should be made after assessing the need of the applicant and the entire area of the Park may not be allotted. The authority must also consider as to whether the Park is suitable for the purpose for which it is being allotted, and for that purpose, a security etc. may be asked to be deposited by the applicant.

In view of the above, we dispose of this petition requesting the Prescribed Authority to ensure that the Park if allotted should not be damaged and after the function is over shall be restored to its original position and shall be cleaned completely."

The petitioner is directed to add them (Model Town Nagrik Parishad, Model Town, Pandu Nagar, Kanpur) as party respondent and serve a copy of writ petition on them immediately, so that necessary order can be passed or any other prayer made by the petitioner can be considered upon hearing such parties. Learned Counsel for the petitioner will inform the learned Counsel for the Nagar Nigam accordingly.

The matter is made returnable on 31st October, 2007.

Let the certified copy of this order be issued to the learned Counsel appearing for the parties on payment of usual charge in course of today.

(Justice Amitava Lala)

I agree.

(Justice S.P. Mehrotra)

Dt./- 12th October, 2007.

SKT/-


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.