BHOPAL: Dismissing two petitions challenging the Ujjain Municipal Corporation’s (UMC) decision to demolish a portion of the Shahi Masjid in Ujjain for widening an important road ahead of Simhastha (Kumbh) 2028, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has allowed the authorities to proceed with the partial demolition of the mosque.
A single-judge bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore, headed by Justice Sandeep N Bhatt, in its 27-page order passed on Wednesday, said, “It seems that the petitioners are not cooperating with the process of the widening of the road by raising one or another dispute under the pretext of giving special treatment to the religious place, and also believing that differential treatment is being given to the petitioners.
Based on the above-mentioned discussion, such contentions are found to be incorrect.”
“Therefore, considering the upcoming event of the Simhastha Kumbh, 2028, whereby the expectations of crores of devotees are required to be kept in mind, as well as the need to provide better facilities and to manage the traffic of such events; and considering the situation of the premises in question, which is almost opposite to the Mahakaleshwar Temple and very near to the Kshipra River; and for the consideration of the larger public safety and larger public interest, the action taken by the respondent (UMC) is found to be after following the necessary provisions of law,” the HC said.
“Furthermore, the impugned order was passed after considering the objections raised by the petitioner. Therefore, no interference is called for. Both the petitions are found meritless and deserve to be dismissed. Accordingly, they are dismissed,” the HC added.
The HC observed, “There are numerous disputed questions of fact involved in the present matter, including the petitioner's capacity to file this writ petition and their locus standi. On that count as well, this Court is not required to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Article 226 of the Constitution of India, keeping in mind the larger public interest. It is a hard reality that with the efflux of time, the population of the city has increased. In view of the provisions of the Ujjain Development Plan, 2035, the UMC is empowered to take action by following the necessary statutory provisions.
The Corporation has already taken all necessary actions available under the law while strictly observing the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the actions of the authorities, including the Corporation and the state, cannot be considered arbitrary, unjust, unconstitutional, or violative of Articles 14, 25, 26, and 300A of the Constitution of India. Consequently, no case is made out for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
The HC further stated, “There is no dispute that the property in question (Mosque) is a religious place and has existed for many years. There is also no dispute regarding the aspect that, on the same road, portions of the constructions of ten temples and one mosque have already been removed. Furthermore, authorities in the city of Ujjain have taken action against the construction of about 80 religious places in total. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Corporation is acting in an arbitrary manner or in violation of Article 14 Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”
The petitions were filed by Shahi Masjid Waqf Panchayat Mochiyaan through its authorised representative Ashfaq Ahmad and others, as well as Shahi Masjid Waqf Panch Mochiyaan through its president Arshan Hussain.
The petitioners claimed an interest in the religious place and said they administer the affairs of the mosque, which is registered as a Waqf property. They challenged the UMC’s decision to issue a notice for the demolition of a portion of the mosque to facilitate road widening to 15 metres.
The petitioners contended that the property in question is an ancient structure that has existed for generations. They submitted that the proposed demolition would involve a portion of the prayer hall (Jamat Khana), a 120-foot-tall minaret and the Mazhar Chouk Shahi.
The petitioners further submitted that the UMC’s action, as well as that of the state, violated their fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India.