Reserved IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (PIL) No. 1208 of 2006 Vyapar Mandal Samiti Bara Bazar, Haridwar and others …….Petitioners. Versus State of Uttaranchal and others …Respondents. Mr. M.C. Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. H.M. Raturi, Advocate for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 5. Ms. Beena Pande, Advocate for respondent nos. 3 and 4. Coram : Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to direct the respondents not to stop river Ganges Canal during the period between “Vijaya Dashmi” and “Deepawali” at Haridwar as it is normally done each year. The facts as they emerge from a perusal of the writ petition reveal that petitioner no. 1 is a registered society in Haridwar. In Haridwar there is a bridge known as “Bhagirathi Bridge”, where the water of river Ganges is diverted towards various “ghats”, including “Har-ki- Pauri” which is the main “ghat”. All around the year, there are many religious festivals of Hindus where pilgrims come to visit these “ghats” and perform religious ceremonies and to take a dip in the holy river Ganga. The petitioners state that as the water in these river canals is closed between “Vijaya Dashmi” and “Deepawali” every year, the pilgrims, who come here to perform “puja” and religious ceremonies during this period cannot do so as there is no water in the “ghats” during this period. 2 In the counter affidavit, respondent nos. 1, 2 and 5 has stated that they have no control over the closing and opening of these canals inasmuch as under the Provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000, the power vests totally with the State of Uttar Pradesh i.e. respondent nos. 3 and 4. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3 states that river canal is closed every year during “Vijaya Dashmi” and “Deepawali” so that the canal remains dry and the “ghats” and the river bed can be repaired during this period. The period between “Vijaya Dashmi” and “Deepawali” has been deliberately chosen for the annual repair and maintenance work as during this period farmers and agriculturists do not require irrigation facilities as there are no standing crops during this period, though irrigation is required immediately after “Deepawali” for the “rabi” crop. This being the case of respondent nos. 3 and 4, it appears that the primary reason for closing of the river canals during this period is from the point of view of agriculture and the agriculturists, who also have a claim over the river water. Petitioner no. 1 before this Court is a registered society which has a number of businessmen, “pandas”, “Teerath Purohits” and other persons engaged in performing religious ceremonies and ritual on the various “ghats” of the Holy Ganga in Haridwar as its members. According to the averments made in the writ petition, the main purpose of the society is to provide various facilities to the pilgrims coming from various parts of India and abroad to perform the religious ceremonies, ritual near holy Ganga. The remaining petitioners have not stated as to what is their locus in filing the present writ petition. 3 Be that as it may, the reasons which have been assigned by respondent nos. 3 and 4 for closing the river canal between “Vijaya Dashmi” and “Deepawali” each year for cleaning and repairing purposes seem to be reasonable and bona fide. It is not the case of the petitioners that religious ceremonies during this period cannot be performed at all. River Ganga is a perennial river which flows in Haridwar and religious ceremonies and festivals are performed throughout the year. Only there is a limited restriction between “Vijaya Dashmi” and “Deepawali” that too for a few “ghats”. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, this restriction does not seem to be unreasonable, in fact it appears to be necessary. No interference, therefore can be made by this Court on the averments presently made by the petitioners before this Court. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J.) 11.3.2010 Avneet