1 (911)AO (ST).22904.2011.sxw mnm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST) NO. 22904 OF 2011 Pramod Govind Chogle ...Appellant Vs. Municipal Corporation, Gr. Mumbai & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. I.K. Tripathi, Advocate a/w. Mr. N.R. Dubey, Advocate for the Appellant Mr. Mayur B. Joshi, Advocate for Respondent No.4 Ms. K.K. Soran for MMC Mr. H.J. Dedhia, AGP for the State CORAM : SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 26TH AUGUST, 2011 P.C. : 1. The appeal challenges the impugned order rejecting the grant of relief of injunction against putting up a Pandal for Ganesh celebrations in the Borivali Municipal Market. 2. The parties are admittedly neighbours carrying on business in shops in the Borivli market. The Appellant’s shop is shown to be near one corner of the market. Adjoining his shop is another shop. Next to that shop the Pandal is being put. 3. The Applicant seeks to restrain it. The title of either of the parties does not come up for consideration in the interim application which is essentially against the tort of nuisance. The nuisance caused to the Appellant and his customers alone would have to be seen. 2 (911)AO (ST).22904.2011.sxw 4. The width of the shops is about 10 ft. Hence there is a space of at least 10ft., between the Pandal and the Appellant’s shop. 5. In view of the space between the Appellant’s shop and the Pandal there would be free ingress and egress to the Appellant’s shop unless there is needless over crowding near the Appellant’s shop. Consequently, no nuisance to the customers who come to the Appellant’s shop is prima facie shown. It is the Respondents’ case that similar pandal has been put up for the last 24 years without any nuisance and the Police authorities have endorsed that fact. 6. Respondent No.4 who has sought to put up the Pandal through his Counsel gives an undertaking not to cause overcrowding near the Appellant’s shop. 7. It need hardly be stated that unnecessary nuisance could be caused even by illegal activities and noise pollution. The Respondent No.4 through his Counsel agrees not to have any illegal activities like consumption of liquor or gambling carried on in the Pandal at any time during the festival. 8. The Respondent No.4 through his Counsel further agrees not to cause illegal noise pollution. This would include the use of mike between 10 p.m and 6 a.m. 9. Other than the above acts, the festivities of Ganpati would not cause 3 (911)AO (ST).22904.2011.sxw any nuisance to the Appellant. 10. Hence the following order: 1. The Respondent No.4 shall be entitled to carry on Ganpati festivities in the Pandal which is put up as shown in the photographs produced by the Respondent No.4. 2. The Respondent No.4 shall see to it that there is no over crowding near the Appellant’s shop such as to hinder ingress and egress to his shop. 3. The Respondent No.4 shall not carry out any illegal activities of liquor consumption or gambling at any time in or near the Pandal. 4. The Respondent No.4 shall not make use of any mike between 10 p.m to 6 a.m. 5. Subject to these restrictions the festives may go on. 6. This Court trusts that in future also this same spirit shall prevail between the Appellant and the Respondents. 7. The impugned order is modified to that extent. 8. Appeal is disposed off accordingly. Civil Application is also disposed off accordingly. 4 (911)AO (ST).22904.2011.sxw 9. 4 photographs on one single sheet of paper signed by the Advocate on behalf of the Respondents tendered to the Court are kept on record. 4 other photographs similarly signed are handed over to the Appellant’s Advocate. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)