GHULAM ABBAS Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having heard Sri Asoke Sen, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri A. K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the State government and the District Magistrate, Varanasi, and Sri T. S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer learned counsel appearing for respondent 5, we find no reason or justification to disturb the arrangement effected: by this court's order dated 7/03/1986 as an experimental measure. The said arrangement, as directed by the said order, has to continue for a period of ten years. It is amply clear from the counter-affidavit sworn by the City Magistrate, Varanasi that the experimental measure has proved successful and has ensured peaceful performance of religious rites, rituals, practices and functions by the members of the Shia community, barring some minor incidents for which appropriate proceedings have been taken by the District Magistrate under S. 107 read with S. 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against both the rival communities i. e. Sunnis and the Shias communities.

(2.) We wish to emphasise that the maintenance of law and order is a function of the District Magistrate and we have every reason to believe that the District Magistrate with a view to avoid any possible breach of peace would take the necessary steps well in advance for the purpose of maintaining public order which would be in the larger interests of the society. The exercise of fundamental rights underarticles 25 and 26 of the Constitution is not an absolute right but must yield or give way to maintenance of public order as laid down by this court in Gulam Abbas v. State of U. P. The principles are well settled and it is but for the Disrict 'magistrate to exercise his powers in consonance with the provisions of S. 144 of the Code.

(3.) Sri Asoke Sen, learned counsel for the petitioners, however, draws our attention to the fact that in terms of the court's order dated 7/03/1986 the two graves of Lal Mohammed and Smt. Sakina had to be enclosed by the construction of a brick masonry wall of 12 ft. in height on all sides but the District Authorities have instead constructed a masonry wall on all sides to enclose the graves in question and this according to him, constitutes a non-compliance of the court's order. The direction in the order is in these terms: