DHARMESH SHARMA, J. (ORAL)

CM APPL. 52367/2024 – EXMP.

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 12585/2024 & CM APPL. 52366/2024

3. The petitioner is invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, for directions to the respondent to withdraw its so called arbitrary and wrongful action of cancellation of booking of plot No. EZ-88-B, Utsav Ground, I.P. Extension, Delhi (hereinafter referred as ‘site in question’) from holding „religious functions‟, and thus, the consequent revival of the booking by the petitioner for the period from 29.08.2024 to 18.09.2024 for Janmashtami, Dussehra, Durga Pooja and Navratra etc.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent/DDA, Delhi Development Authority is present on advance notice.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that they applied Online for booking of the site in question on 25.08.2024 and had made payment of the requisite amount to the tune of ₹ 2,32,450/- towards booking but all of a sudden they received a notice through WhatsApp to the following effect:

6. Ms. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent/DDA has urged that the present petition is without any cause of action and misconceived inasmuch as merely because the application of the petitioner and payment of the booking amount would not ipso facto lead to the allotment of the site in question for holding such functions. In this regard, she invited reference to the decision by the Supreme Court in the case of North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. President Budhela Welfare Association & Anr., Civil Appeal Diary No (s). 15182/2021 dated 02.08.2021 whereby it was held as under:-

“Issue notice to the respondents.

Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the judgment and order under appeal has been passed without notice to the appellants North Delhi Municipal Corporation (CA D. No. 15182 of 2021) and the South Delhi Municipal Corporation (CA D. No. 15754 of 2021). Accordingly, there will be stay of operation of the judgment and order under appeal. It is made clear that the directions of the Court in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India reported in (2009) 17 SCC 683 with regard to the use of parks shall strictly be adhered to, and in no circumstances, shall use of parks for the purposes as mentioned in the said judgment be permitted for more than 10 days in a month.” {bold portions emphasized}

7. Ex facie, there is merit in the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent/DDA that when it comes to organizing functions at public parks, there is no legal right vested with anyone to hold any social or public functions at such site except as per the aforesaid decision for not more than 10 days and also having regard to the other objective parameters such as the nature and extent of park, its ornamental value, impact on the environment in the nature of damage to the tree and/or plantation, hazards to the birds, and noise pollution, parking issues etc.

8. In the said background of such fundamental requirement, what is baffling is that the petitioner does not know for what purpose the site in question is required. If the site in question is required for „Ram Leela and Dussehra festivals‟, well that will be next month commencing from 1^st or 2^nd October, 2024 till 12^th October, 2024. It was urged that it was required for celebrating Krishna Janmashtami, which incidentally was on 26^th August, 2024. Faced with the above scenario, learned counsel for the petitioner added another twist to its cause that the site in question was sought to be booked for holding „Ganesh Chaturthi‟. If that is so, „Ganesh Chaturthi‟ was last Saturday i.e. 07.09.2024. What stares on the face of the record is that not only in the title of the writ but also in the entire narrative in the writ petition, there is no clear indication as to for what purpose or to celebrate what function, the si