SRI AWADH RAM LEELA COMMITTEE VASHNU MATA MANDIR & ANR. vs DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.

$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 769/2024 & C.M.No.45614/2024
SRI AWADH RAM LEELA COMMITTEE VASHNU MATA
MANDIR & ANR. …..Appellants
Through: Ms.Sanya Dua with Ms.Yashi Bajpai
and Mr.Samarth Sharma, Advocates.
versus
DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. …..Respondents
Through: Ms.Manika Tripathy, standing
counsel for DDA with Mr.Ashutosh
Kaushik and Mr.Rony John,
Advocates.
Mr.Mukesh Gupta, standing counsel
with Mr.Shashi Gupta and Mr.Arnav
Gupta, Advocates for MCD.
Mr.Rahul, Legal Assistant, DDA.
% Date of Decision: 09th August, 2024
CORAM:
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, ACJ : (ORAL)

1. Present letters patent appeal has been filed challenging the order dated
15th July, 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) 12779/2023,
whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants, seeking extension of Ram
Leela ground to seven acres and connecting the said ground with the main
road of Mukundpur, was dismissed on the ground that appellants have failed

to prove that the respondents failed to perform their public duty.
2. The appellants are aggrieved by the fact that the area currently
allotted to them by the MCD on license basis for organising, holding and
staging Ram Leela is small, inconvenient and not easily accessible.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants states that the right to organise
Ram Leela is a fundamental right and protected under Articles 25 and 26 of
the Constitution. She contends that the area presently allotted by the MCD
restrains the appellants from exercising their fundamental right. She states
that prior to 2004, the area utilised by the appellants was adjoining the main
road of Mukundpur colony. She however states that the present area allotted
by the MCD is away from the main road and as such, not easily accessible.
She contends that the learned Single Judge failed to consider that the issue
of accessibility has exacerbated due to rise in the population of Mukundpur
colony since 2004. She states that holding Ram Leela at the same venue will
disrupt traffic, cause safety as well as law and order issues.
4. Having perused the paper book, this Court finds that the appellants
have admitted before the learned Single Judge that MCD provides a portion
of 2½ acres land to the appellants for organising Ram Leela and that the
adjoining land does not belong to DDA or MCD, but belongs to the forest
department. Therefore, as no other land is available, the learned Single
Judge has rightly dismissed the prayer for grant of additional land to the
appellants.
5. This Court is further of the view that that the appellants have no
fundamental right to insist on organising Ram Leela on a particular land or
in the vicinity of a particular colony. No judicial direction and/or order can
be issued to the statutory authority to acquire land for the purpose of

organising any religious event.
6. This Court is also in agreement with the learned Single Judge that the
appellants have failed to show that the respondents failed to perform their
public duty
7. Accordingly, the present appeal, along with pending application,
being bereft of merit is dismissed.

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J
AUGUST 9, 2024
KA