1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.320 OF 2001 Mr.Gajendra Babu L. Gupta : Petitioner. Versus The Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & ors. : Respondents. Mr.M M Vashi i/by M/s. M P Vashi for the Petitioner None for the Respondents. CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ DATED : APRIL 15, 2009 P.C. 1. By way of this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the decision taken by the Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 in granting permission to the Respondent No.5 to construct and put up a Mandap during the Ganeshotsav festival. 2. It is the case of the Petitioner that he is carrying on 2 business of preparing and selling sweetmeats. Respondent No.5 intends to construct a huge Mandap in front of the Petitioner's shops for the purpose of celebrating Ganeshotsav Festival. The said permission for putting up a Mandap in front of the shops of the Petitioner affects the business of the Petitioner. Respondent No.5 is an unregistered association and celebrating the Ganeshotsav Festival in the area in question and for the said festival, permission is sought for every year for putting up a Mandap wherein the festival is celebrated. It is further the case of the Petitioner that since last four years before filing of the above Petition, the shops of the Petitioner were closed down due to pending court matters and subsequently the Petitioner started running the said shops. The Petitioner also addressed letters in that behalf to the competent authorities. The prayer made by the Petitioner in this Petition is to the effect that the Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 be restrained from granting permission to the Respondent No.5 to construct and put up a Mandap for Ganeshotsav festival in front of the Petitioner's shops i.e. Shop Nos.17, 17A and 17B, situated at Trishul Building No.2, Sitaram Jadhav Marg, Lower Parel, Bombay-400 013. 3 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic) has filed his reply to the above Writ Petition. As per the said Reply, the pandal in question has been put up after taking No Objection Certificate from the competent authorities. In para 5 of the said Reply, it has been specifically averred that while giving no objection certificate for putting the pandal, the letter of the Petitioner has been kept in mind and it has been seen that the pandal is about 10 ft. approximately away from the shop of the Petitioner. It has been clearly averred in the said reply that sufficient area has been left for passing of the pedestrians and traffic and the access to the shops of the Petitioner is not affected in any manner. 4. After considering the reply of the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic) and after hearing Mr.Vashi, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, we are of the opinion that the relief sought for by the Petitioner in the above Petition that Respondent Nos.2 and 3 be restrained from granting permission to the Respondent No.5 to construct and put up a pandal for a temporary 4 period during Ganeshotsav festival is not required to be granted for the following reasons. Firstly, the reply filed on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic) discloses that ample space is left for passing of the pedestrians and traffic even after the pandal is put up. Secondly, the permission for putting the pandal is given for a temporary period during the Ganeshotsav festival and, the Corporation is empowered to grant such permission for religious festivals for a limited period. It is pertinent to note here that the permission has been granted only on the basis of appropriate application made by the Applicant. Considering the size of the pandal, in our view, it cannot be said that it will obstruct the traffic in any manner or that because of the same, the business of the Petitioner is required to be closed down or paralysed. This aspect has also been considered by this Court at the time deciding the Notice of Motion by an order dated 16th August 2001. Whilst rejecting the said Notice of Motion this Court filed by the Petitioner has observed as under :- “As far as this year is concerned, Mrs.Sanglikar for Respondents No.1 to 4 informs that Respondent 5 No.5 has duly applied for permission to put up a pandal on the particular place and the permission has been granted. The size of the pandal is going to be 8' x 12'. Ms.Deshpande has drawn our attention to the photograph of this structure that was put up last year. From that photograph, it is clearly seen that taxi as well as motorcycle passing on the road beyond the pandal. Similarly, the entire footpath between the shop of the petitioner and the pandal is completely left undisturbed. The access to the shop is not blocked anywhere and the size of the pandal put up is 8' x 12, we do not think that there is any reason to interfere as sought by the petitioner to dispute.” 5. Considering the reply of the other side and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that no interference of this Court is called for in connection with the temporary permission granted by the Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 which is for a limited period i.e during the Ganeshotsav festival. We, however, direct that in future while considering such applications for putting up the pandal during the religious festivals, the Municipal Corporation shall bear in mind that grant of such permissions for 6 putting up the pandals would not result in obstruction of traffic or cause any inconvenience to the pedestrians. 6. Subject to above, this Writ Petition is rejected. Rule is discharged. [R.M.SAVANT,J] [P.B.MAJMUDAR,J]