Consider barring Ganesh mandals violating permissions to erect pandals: HC to BMC

The Bombay high court has stated that the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) needs a more serious deterrent against those who cause damage to roads and footpaths while setting up pandals during festivals. The court was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Prameya Foundation, which argued that the rule of forfeiting security deposits for violation of pandal permission was ineffective. The court has directed the BMC to take a decision on the matter within six weeks.

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court (HC) on Wednesday said the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) ought to have a more serious deterrent against those who set up pandals during festivals and cause damage to roads and footpaths.

HT Image

A division bench of chief justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and justice Arif Doctor said that they are of the opinion that if a serious deterrent was imposed, then it would be effective and then those erecting pandals would have to adhere to the conditions that no damage should be caused to public roads and footpaths.

The court was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by one Prameya Foundation seeking a direction to the BMC to not grant permission to those pandals and ‘mandaps’ who have violated the terms and conditions imposed the previous year. Some of them dug up roads and then did not restore them after the pandals were removed.

The NGO has stated that the rule of forfeiting security deposits for violation of pandal permission was proving to be ineffective and therefore BMC should bar such mandals from applying the next year.

The NGO further stated that such acts damage the roads and create potholes which cause inconvenience and hardships to pedestrians and citizens.

The advocate for BMC however informed the bench that as per section 3 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act the amounts deposited by organisers can be forfeited if they are found violating permission conditions.

The NGO countered saying the BMC’s rule was ineffective as even after the forfeiture, Ganesh mandals continued to violate the permission conditions year after year and hence to curb such repetition, the BMC should be directed to formulate a deterrent policy whereby mandals that violate pandal permission conditions are barred from applying for permission the next year. The petition stated that as the process of applying for registration and seeking permission for pandals had started on Tuesday, the BMC should be asked to formulate the policy urgently.

After hearing the parties, the court passed an order that, “Having regard to the contents of PIL, what we notice is that the concerns raised in PIL need to be addressed. It is common knowledge that those who seek permission to erect pandals during the festival season and ceremonies are supposed to leave the roads in the same conditions. Some of them violate conditions and on account of their conduct some or other damage is caused to roads, which unnecessarily causes difficulty to the pedestrians and other users of the roads.”

The bench remarked that some policy decisions had to be made by competent authority of the corporation in respect of the petitioner’s prayer and directed the BMC to take a decision in respect of the prayer. The HC also asked BMC to treat the petition and its averments as a representation and take a decision in this regard within six weeks of the copy of the petition being submitted to the competent authority.