WPMS/2246/2009 of PANCH DASNAM AAHWAN AKHADA and OTHERS Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND and OTHERS on 31 December 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND ATNAINITAL

WRIT PETITION NO. 2246 OF 2009 (MS)

Shri Panch Dasnam Aahwan Akhada and others.

…………Petitioners.

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others. …….Respondents.

Mr. A.K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1 to 4. Mr. I.P. Kohli, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for respondent no. 5.

Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.Heard Mr. A.K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1 to 4 and Mr. I.P. Kohli, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for respondent no. 5.

The petitioners have filed this writ petition with an apprehension that in the “Kumbh Mela”, which is scheduled to take place on 14[th] January, 2010, they will not be allowed to perform certain ceremonies, which are essential for their “Akhara”, such as posting of “Dharm Dhwaja” etc.

The State Counsel has, however, vehemently objected to the prayer made in the writ petition and has stated that such a petition is, in fact, not maintainable as the petitioner has not alleged violation of any right, be it constitutional or any other legal right.

The objections raised by the State Counsel appear to be correct. The relief sought by the petitioner in the writ petition cannot be granted. Apart from the above fact, there is no reason to interfere in the writ petition as the petitioner has filed this writ petition on a mere apprehension. This is another reason for not interfering with the present writ petition. Hence, this writ petition is liable to be rejected in limine and is hereby dismissed.

It is the duty of the “Mela Adhikari” and other officers appointed for the purposes to ensure smooth and proper functioning of the “Mela”. The first priority is to maintain law and order and to see that the “Mela” goes without any hurdle. The petitioner is at liberty to approach these authorities, in case he chooses, who may take suitable action, in case such a representation is made.

Rathour

(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 31.12.2009