# Sahajram Maurya v. The State of U.P. & others

- **Citation:** (2012) 3 ILRA 1360
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-10-18
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54168 of 2012
- **Bench:** Vineet Saran, Mushaffey Ahmad
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sahajram-maurya-v-the-state-of-u-p-others-42411
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Communal Tension-S.D.O. By impugned
order refused permission to hold Durga
Puja-on ground of communal tensionright of every citizen to profess their
religion-direction issued to ensure Durga
Puja-by
providing
alternate
Plot
at
distance of 0.5 Km from Masjid-within 24
hours-refusal order quashed.

Held: Para-8

In view of the aforesaid, we are of the
opinion that the impugned order dated
26.9.2012 deserves to be quashed and is,
accordingly, set aside. We, however,
direct that the respondents no. 2, 3 and
4, the District Magistrate, Siddharth
Nagar,
Sub-Divisional
Magistrate,
Dumariyaganj, district Siddharth Nagar
and the Station Officer Incharge, Police
Station,
Trilokpur,
district
Siddharth
Nagar to ensure that the petitioner is
permitted to hold Durga Puja for the
remaining days of this Navratri at the
place which may be in the same village
around 500 meters away from the Masjid
and ensure that there is no disturbance
amongst the residents of the village.

## Text

1360 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.10.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, J.
THE HON'BLE MUSHAFFEY AHMAD, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54168 of 2012

Sahajram Maurya

 ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Tripathi B.G. Bhai

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Communal Tension-S.D.O. By impugned
order refused permission to hold Durga
Puja-on ground of communal tensionright of every citizen to profess their
religion-direction issued to ensure Durga
Puja-by
providing
alternate
Plot
at
distance of 0.5 Km from Masjid-within 24
hours-refusal order quashed.

Held: Para-8

In view of the aforesaid, we are of the
opinion that the impugned order dated
26.9.2012 deserves to be quashed and is,
accordingly, set aside. We, however,
direct that the respondents no. 2, 3 and
4, the District Magistrate, Siddharth
Nagar,
Sub-Divisional
Magistrate,
Dumariyaganj, district Siddharth Nagar
and the Station Officer Incharge, Police
Station,
Trilokpur,
district
Siddharth
Nagar to ensure that the petitioner is
permitted to hold Durga Puja for the
remaining days of this Navratri at the
place which may be in the same village
around 500 meters away from the Masjid
and ensure that there is no disturbance
amongst the residents of the village.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
with the prayer for quashing the order
dated 26.9.2012 passed by the SubDivisional Magistrate, respondent no. 3
whereby permission to hold the Durga
Puja during Navratri from 16.10.2012 to
24.10.2012 has been refused on the
ground that there is likelihood of the
communal tension. Challenging the said
order as well as praying that the security
be provided for celebrating the Durga
Puja festival in the village in question,
this writ petition has been filed.

2. We have heard Sri Tripathi B.G.
Bhai, learned counsel for the petitioner as
well as Sri Yashwant Varma, learned
Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the
respondents and have perused the record.

3. m Time was granted to Sri Varma
for obtaining instructions, which he states
that he has received, and the same are
taken on record. With consent of the
learned counsel for the parties, we dispose
of this writ petition at this stage without
calling for a counter affidavit.

4. The submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the plot in
question
where
the
Durga
Puja
celebrations are to be held, belongs to the
petitioner and is at a distance of over 100
meters from the Masjid in the village. The
learned Chief Standing Counsel disputes
the same and as per his instructions, the
plot is in the vicinity of the Masjid, at a
distance of about 50 meters.

5. The ground taken in the order
passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate
is that since similar attempt of holding
Durga Puja during previoius Navratri in
3 All] Sahajram Maurya V. The State of U.P. & others
1361
2011 was made on the same the plot and
since there was tension in the village,
hence the permission to hold the Durga
Puja this year was being denied.

6. It is unfortunate that the
administration refuses permission for
holding Puja in our secular State
especially
during
festival
season.
Merely because there is likelihood of
communal tension as there is large
population of Muslims in the village, as
has been stated in the order, should not
prevent the other community from
holding their religious festivals. Every
citizen has a right to profess his
religion. If this stand, as have been
taken by the authorities, is permitted
then in an area where there are persons
of other religion in majority, the
persons of those who are of different
religion and in minority, will never be
permitted
to
hold
their
religious
functions and festivals. It is for the
administration to assess as to where
such function for celebrating the
festivals can be permitted. If the same
is not possible on a plot which is
adjacent or in the vicinity of a religious
place of the other religion, the correct
approach of the authorities should have
been to require the petitioner to shift
the venue of the Durga Puja to a place
which is at a reasonable distance from
the Masjid. This Court would also not
want that there should be communal
tension because of Durga Puja being
celebrated close to a Masjid but at the
same time the Court cannot shut its
eyes to the fact that all communities
have to live in this country, cities and
villages in harmony. If a particular
group of persons tries to create any
hindrance in holding of Durga Puja,
which is to be held only once in a year
for nine days during Navratri, then it is
for the administration to check the
same and take necessary steps in that
direction. Denying permission to hold
puja
during
Navratri
or
holding
festivities during 'id' or Christmas on
the apprehension that there could be
communal tension would only go to
show
the
incompetence
of
the
administration. It would be something
like the administration asking citizens
not to move out of their homes after
sunset to avoid being robbed. We are of
the
opinion
that
the
State
administration cannot be permitted to
take such a stand.

7. In our view, denial of holding
Durga Puja in the village, as has been
done by the impugned order, cannot be
justified in law. If at all there is some
difficulty in permitting to hold Durga
Puja during Navratri at a place where
the petitioner is wanting to hold such
function because of it being close to
the Masjid, the administration ought to
have given an alternative site where the
Durga Puja could be held during such
period.

8. In view of the aforesaid, we are
of the opinion that the impugned order
dated 26.9.2012 deserves to be quashed
and is, accordingly, set aside. We,
however, direct that the respondents
no. 2, 3 and 4, the District Magistrate,
Siddharth
Nagar,
Sub-Divisional
Magistrate,
Dumariyaganj,
district
Siddharth
Nagar
and
the
Station
Officer
Incharge,
Police
Station,
Trilokpur, district Siddharth Nagar to
ensure that the petitioner is permitted
to hold Durga Puja for the remaining
days of this Navratri at the place which
may be in the same village around 500
1362 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
meters away from the Masjid and
ensure that there is no disturbance
amongst the residents of the village.
Since the petitioner was proposing to
hold Durga Puja on his own plot which
was measuring 650 Sq. meters, and the
petitioner is not being permitted to hold
Puja on the said plot, as such, we direct
that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
respondent no. 3 shall ensure that
adequate land measuring about 500 Sq.
meters shall be provided to the
petitioner at a distance of around 0.5
kilometers from the Masjid of the
village where the Durga Puja can be
held for the remaining period. Such
arrangement shall be ensured by the
respondent no. 3 within 24 hours of the
petitioner filing a certified copy of this
order before the respondent no. 3. The
petitioner
undertakes
that
the
performance of the Durga Puja will be
peaceful
and
without
use
of
loudspeakers.

9. This writ petition stands
allowed to the extent indicated as
above. No order as to costs.

10. Let a copy of this order be
issued to the learned counsel for the
parties today on payment of usual
charges.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.10.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAN VIJAI SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54399 of 2012

Ram Surat

...Petitioner
Versus
D.D.C. And Others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Chandra Shekhar Srivastav
Sri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act-1953Section 42-A-Revisional Court-set-a-side
the order passed by C.O.-on ground the
order of correction alterations in Chak in
garb of correction-beyond jurisdictionWrit Court declined to interfere.

Held: Para-7

Here in the present case, as has been
observed by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation, the Consolidation Officer
while passing the impugned order dated
6.11.2001
has
not
corrected
the
arithmetical or clerical error but he has
amended the chak of the petitioner
which, in his opinion, was not ambit of
Section 42 (A). I am of the view that the
view taken by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation cannot be said to be
unjustified for the simple reason that the
order passed by the Consolidation Officer
will not fall in the ambit of correction of
clerical or arithmetical error but he has
done the amendment in the chak.
Therefore, the order passed by him in my
considered
opinion
is
without
jurisdiction.
Case Law discussed:
(1997) 9 SCC 69; AIR 2011 SC 514; Special
Appeal No. 164 of 2012 Committee of