VIDYA GANAPATHI MANDALI Vs. DY COMMR OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An association called Sree Vidya Ganapaihi Mandali of Chamarajanagar Town is the petitioner before me. One of the objects of the petitioner is to instal an idol of Lord Ganapathi every year in that town. According to Hindu rites and customs, an idol is installed on the Vinayaka Chaturthi day, poojas are performed regularly and on an auspicious day, the idol is carried in a chariot and is immersed in a nearby tank, pond or river of the village, town or city. During the year 1978 Vinayaka Chaturthi day, fell on 6-9-1978, on which day the petitioner had installed an idol at Gurunanja Setty's choultry of car street of the town. After the week long celebrations, the petitioner had decided to carry that idol in a chariot on 17-9 1978 passing through several streets of the town and thereafter immerse the same in water. Evidently on a reference made thereto on 16-9-1978, respondent No. 3 by his Endorsement-No. 282/78 dated 20/21 .9-1978 (Ext-D) informed the petir ioner that it was not advisable to take the procession on two streets viz., Kadakpur Mohalla and Harijan stree from the point of view of maintenance of law and order. He, however, directed the petitioner, to approach respondent No. 1 and obtain his permission under S. 31 (1) (o) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (Karnataka Act No. 4 of 1964) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for taking out a procession of the idol on the aforesaid streets. In compliance with the aforesaid direction, the petitioner without immersing the idol on 17-9-1978 or thereafter, approached respondent No. 1 for his permission under S. 31 (1) (o) of the Act. On that application respondent No. 1 by his order No. MAG.MLO. 256/78-79 dated 24th January, 1979 (Ext-G) has accorded permission to the petitioner, to carry the idol in procession on the several streets mentioned in that order except on. the aforesaid two streets objected to by respondent No. 3. An application made by the petitioner for furnishing reasons for refusing permission' on the aforesaid two streets, has been rejected by respondent No. 1 on the ground; that their disclosure was not in the public interest, la these circumstances, the petitioner without immersing the idol installed on 6-9-1978 so far, has approached this Court under Art 226 of the Constitution for an appropriate writ to the respondents to carry the idol on the aforesaid two streets and other streets. The petitioner has urged that S. 31 (1) (o) of the Act, does rot permit respondent No. 1 to prohibit the procession on the aforesaid two streets and other streets.

(2.) The respondents have resisted the case of the petitioner. In a common return, the respondents have asserted that Kadakapur Mohalla was exclusively or predominently inhabited by Muslims and . the petitioner has been prohibited from carrying the chariot in procession in the interest of maintaining law and order, public peace and tranquility in the town. They have asserted that the road portion in front of the mosque situated in Kadakapur Mohalla is narrow. So far as the Harijan colony/street is concerned nothing special is stated, but from the documents produced by the respondents it appears that the authorities apprehend breath of peace if a procession is taken in that colony or street also. While drawing reference to certain unfortunate events that took place at Kadakaour Mohalla in the year 1970 in connection with a similar procession, the respondent have urged that S. 31 (1) (o) of the Act empowers them to prohibit a procession on any steeet or road to maintain public peace and tranquility. The petitioner iias not denied the unfortunate events in connection with a similar procession in the year 1970.

(3.) Shri H. Subramanya Jois, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that S. 31 (1) (o) of the Act does not authorise the prohibition of a procession on any street or road, but only permits its regulation. He maintained that this legal position is concluded by the ruling of the Supreme Court in Himatlal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad (1).