Delhi High Court: In a case wherein, the appellant, Shri Ram Leela Committee, had sought permission for Dussehra celebration at the District Park, Janakpuri the Division Bench of Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna*, JJ., granted permission to the appellants to host Dussehra celebrations in the District Park, Janakpuri for the current year from the date of the present order till 30-10-2023. The Court directed that the Dussehra mela should be held in accordance with all the applicable norms and by taking all the safety precautions, and further directed the appellants to ensure that no damage or harm was caused to the green cover or trees already existing in the ground.
Background
In the instant case, the appellant stated that they had been celebrating Dussehra since more than thirty years in the District Park, Janakpuri with due permission from the Delhi Development Authority (‘DDA’) and they had been complying with all the terms and conditions regarding cleanliness and environment. Due to popularity of these functions, the district ground had been named as Dussehra ground by DDA. The appellant stated that the Dussehra Ground was not a park, rather it was an open space and since beginning, it was being used as multipurpose ground. The recent photographs had also shown that it was a barren ground with no grass or trees. The appellant stated that while holding its Ram Leela, they had never caused any harm to any tree and should not do so in future also.
The appellant further stated that with the permission of the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 18-09-2018 and 01-10-2019, Dussehra was held in the year 2018 and 2019. Respondent 1 approached the Supreme Court against the order dated 18-09-2018, but the same was dismissed. Subsequently, the celebrations were also allowed in the year 2022 vide order dated 02-09-2022.
Respondent 1 had submitted that the Single Judge of this Court in the present writ petition had directed that during the pendency of the writ, no social, cultural, commercial marriage, etc. should be held in the District Park. Despite the injunction, the appellant had sought the permission to hold the function. Respondent 1 stated that the appellant had deliberately with oblique motives did not apply for such permission for designated multipurpose grounds, wherein such functions were held, but sought permission for the District Park, despite the restraining order.
Respondent 1 stated that the appellant was aware that the Division Bench while granting permission for holding Ramleela in previous years had observed that the said permission should not be cited as a precedent. Therefore, no equities could be claimed by the appellant for organizing Ramleela at District Park till the multiple orders were in restraint.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court opined that various provisions of Delhi Development Act, 1957 (‘the DD Act’) read with Delhi Development Authority Rules, 1958 and Master Plan for Delhi, 2021 (‘MPD-2021’) made it evident that Delhi was defined into various zones like residential, commercial, etc, where one of the zones was defined as ‘recreational park’ which included city park, district park and community parks. The Court noted that the district park should have an area of 2,90,000 square meters, out of which 2,50,000 square meters should be used singularly used as a park, whereas the area of 40,000 square meters might be used as a multipurpose ground, wherein various activities could be carried out. The Court opined that the layout plan of the District Park, Janakpuri as approved by MPD-2021, showed the area as a multipurpose ground.
The Court opined that Respondent 1’s contention that, use of district parks as multipurpose grounds amounts to modification of the Master or Zonal Development Plan and this could not be done without following the procedures laid down in Chapter 3A of the DD Act which required prior approval of the Central Government, did not hold any merit. The Court opined that since the MPD-21 was notified with due approval of the Central Government, Chapter 17 Subclause 8(2) of MPD-2021 would become applicable, which provided for special permission of ‘Use Premises in Use Zones from the Authority’ and no additional permission of Central Government was required.
The Court observed that prima facie, it appeared that while the major portion of the park was being used as district park, a small portion of it was used as multipurpose ground and the entire confusion arose because the portion used as multipurpose ground was considered as a district park which appeared to be distinct and existed opposite to the multipurpose ground. The Court further opined that since the matter was pending before the Single Judge to be considered on merits, no final expression on merits was expressed.
The Court noted that Ramleela was permitted to be held without creating any equities or precedent by way of interim orders in the years 2018, 2019 and 2022 because of peculiar circumstances and the appellant had been conducting Ramleela on the same ground for about thirty years.
Thus, considering the similar situation prevailed today and there was no change in the circumstances since the previous orders, the Court granted permission to the appellants to host Dussehra celebrations in the District Park, Janakpuri for the current year from the date of the present order till 30-10-2023. The Court directed that the Dussehra mela should be held in accordance with all the applicable norms and by taking all the safety precautions, and further directed the appellants to ensure that no damage or harm was caused to the green cover or trees already existing in the ground.
The Court reiterated that nothing stated herein was an expression on the merits of this case and was confined to the specific issue of grant of permission to hold the Ramleela for the dates as specified.
[Shri Ramleela Committee, Janakpuri v. Rishu Kant Sharma, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6190, decided on 05-10-2023]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellants: K.K. Manan, Senior Advocate with Sanjay Rathi, Uditi Bali, Ajit Singh, Kanishka and Karmanya, Advocates;
For the Respondents: Kanwal Chaudhary, Advocate; Pratima N.Lakra, CGSC; Mukesh Gupta, Standing Counsel with Raghav Gupta and Ishant Sehrawat, Advocates; Manika Tripathy, Standing Counsel for DDA.
