IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19057 of 2010 1. Sandip Kanodia S/O Kailash Prasad Kanodia, R/O Dharamshala Road, Ward No. 14, Holding No. 597, P.O. And P.S.- Sasaram, Distt. Rohtas At Sasaram Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna 3. The District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram Distt. Rohtas at Sasaram 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram, Distt.- Rohtas at Sasaram 5. The Superintendent Of Police, Rohtas at Sasaram Distt.- Rohtas at Sasaram 6. The Station Head Officer, Town Police- Station, Sasaram Distt.- Rohtas at Sasaram ---------------------------------- 2. 20.9.2011. Heard Mr. S.B.K.Mangalam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.Rakesh Kumar Ranjan, learned Assisting Counsel to SC-11 for the State. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the setting up of the Pooja Pandals by the Durga Puja Ayojan Samitee of his area, which according to the petitioner spreads over in such manner that the very passage to the residential houses and business premises gets completely obstructed causing inconvenience not only to the occupants but also to the visitors, the customers and the passersby. Although the area in question in the present case is Ward No.14, Holding Nos.597, 597A 2 and 597B of Dharmshala Road in the town and district of Sasaram but the said feature is a reality and a recurrent annual feature across the State. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that these Pooja Pandals are being set up by the Pooja Samiti members without obtaining any consent of the local residents and without seeking prior permission from either the District Administration or the local Police Authorities. It is contended that there is complete absence of any control on the activities of the Samiti members by the Administration and the Pooja Pandals are being set up at will and pleasure without having regard to the inconvenience caused to the local residents and the occupants of the premises. The writ petition was filed in the year 2010 setting out the aforesaid grievances and which can not be brushed aside simply because the event has passed. A counter affidavit has been filed in response to the grievance raised which is sworn by the Superintendent of Police, Rohtas, enclosing a spot report submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Town Thana, Sasaram, 3 reporting on inspection that the Pandal in question was constructed within the 20 ft. area between the shop of the petitioner and the main road. The grievance of the petitioner is thus confirmed when it is reported by the Local Thana Incharge himself that the said area was being utilized for setting up Pooja Pandal each year. The statement, however, is qualified by submitting that the Pandals were set up without hampering the passage of any person and that no complaint was raised by the local residents in this regard. The report of the Local Thana Incharge is not entirely correct and the very presence of the petitioner before the court is sufficient proof of the show of discontent. It is rather distressing to note that top Police authority in the district, despite the report confirming the position, yet takes refuge behind customary practice. It does not require a mandamus to remind the concerned authorities of the District Administration and the Police Administration of their solemn duty to protect the citizen’s privacy and that it is not hijacked by the might of the Puja Ayojan Samitees who have to adhere to the basic civic requirements and to respect the predicaments of the local habitats. 4 The Puja Samitees are a part of the Society and have to respect the rule of law. The passage of the residents, the shop owners and the local habitats cannot be obstructed by any individual or group of individual forming a Committee. It is the duty of the local Thana Incharge to ensure that the local Samittees obtain prior permission before setting up of Pandals in his area and also ensure that the same does not obstruct the passage of the residents and common public and leaves sufficient space for their movement. Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees a right to life and personal liberty and which includes a right to move around freely. This right of the petitioner cannot be curtailed by anyone much less the Puja Samitee members, except in accordance with law. Putting a restriction to this right under the cover of festivities, is certainly not permissible. A festivity for one cannot be a bone of discontent and an item of discomfort for the other. In fact, the moment, a right exercised by an individual or a group of individuals exceeds its contours to impinge upon the freedom of the other, it ceases to have legal sanction and protection and is amenable to 5 judicial scrutiny. The availability of forums under the Civil and the Criminal laws of the land, would not prevent this court in exercising discretion and issuing appropriate directions in the extraordinary jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in appropriate cases. Having held as such, the writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to draw the attention of the respondent nos.3, 5 and 6, with request for taking appropriate steps to prevent any obstruction to the passage leading to the shops or to the residences, as the case may be, by the Puja Ayojan Samitee while setting up of Pooja Pandals during the festivities. Needless to add that any such request would be attended to in a positive manner by the respondent authorities, more particularly, the District Magistrate, the Superintendent of Police and the Local Thana Incharge. ahk (Jyoti Saran, J.)