Bombay HC Dismisses PIL Seeking Ban 'Singularly' On Falguni Pathak's Navratri Event In Kandivali Playground

Read Time: 04 minutes

Synopsis

The Division Bench was of the opinion that, singling out one particular event/function out of many smacks of want of bona fide.

A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court comprising of Chief Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice Madhav J Jamdar, on Friday, dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed by a journalist against the state, for using the Late Pramod Mahajan Sports Complex ground for commercial purposes and allowing Falguni Pathak to perform during Navratri in Kandivali.

The Bench noted that multiple events were being organised during Navratri throughout Mumbai, however, the petitioner has targeted only one event. The bench went on to state that this shows that the PIL was not filed with a bona fide intention and does not deserve any consideration.

Advocate Abhay Patki, for the respondent argued that the petitioner had not challenged similar events which were organised in 2019, and that the petitioner had not challenged the allotment made to the organiser of the event. Further, he also argued that the petition did not challenge Section 37A of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act

Advocate Mayur Faria, for the petitioner argued that Section 37A was not applicable in the present case, and that the petitioner is only concerned with commercial exploitation of the playground.

The court further noted that the petitioner had not challenged Section 37A of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, wherein the authorities had the power to allow the use of the playground for other purposes and use it for commercial purposes.

The Court thus opined, “It does not require elaboration that Navratri is indeed a festival which is dear to the people of this region and is celebrated with passionate religious fervor. Any event or function to celebrate such religious festival could be comprehended within the term ‘religious function’, as appearing in Section 37-A of the Act.”

 

CASE TITLE: Vinayak Yasvant Sanap vs. State of Maharastra & Ors.