Waqf Karbala Intejamiya Committe Through President Abdul Hamid Niyargar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:16867
1 WP-24236-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI
th
ON THE 26 OF JUNE, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 24236 of 2026
WAQF KARBALA INTEJAMIYA COMMITTE THROUGH PRESIDENT
ABDUL HAMID NIYARGAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rishi Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Dr. Amit Bhatia, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Ms. Mini Ravindran on behalf of Shri Amol Shrivastava, learned
counsel for the respondent No. 2/3.
ORDER
This petition is listed at the request of the petitioner by approval of
Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice of this Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner along with the petitioner is
present in the court.
3. The contesting party-respondent No.2/3 is being represented through
Ms. Mini Ravindran, who appears on advance notice.
4. With the consent of the parties, the matter is being decided finally.
5. The issue which has been raised by the present petitioner in this
petition is that the petitioner holds a traditional religious procession and fair
(Mela) at Dhobhi Ghat, Indore (described in para 5.2 of the petition) every
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 6/26/2026
7:37:32 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:16867
2 WP-24236-2026
year for which permission was being given by the Municipal Corporation,

Indore/respondent No.2 from time to time, last year also the permission was
given, pursuant to which the procession and mela was held in accordance
with the conditions of the permission. For this year also i.e. for the year of
2026, the petitioner filed an application for permission to hold the religious
procession along with fair (Mela). The Municipal Corporation after due
consideration of the application granted permission vide order dated
25.06.2026 whereby subject to deposit of an amount of Rs.1,36,007/-
permission to hold fair (Mela) for a period of three days starting from
26.06.2026 and ending on 28.06.2026 was given. The petitioner has placed
the said permission on record as Annexure P/6. The grievance of the
petitioner is that after grant of this permission the Mayor-in-Council of the
respondent No.3 Municipal Corporation allegedly held its meeting in the
night of 25.06.2026 at around 08.15 P.M. and passed a resolution against the
said permission. In the said Resolution, it has been mentioned that the
petitioner did not comply with the condition as put in place for grant of
permission for the last year. Apart from this, it has also been mentioned that
the fee which was prescribed for the last year was not deposited by the
petitioner, as such for this year, the permission for holding fair (Mela) in this
year should not have been granted by the concerned officer of the Municipal
Corporation, thus, observing the permission granted by the Municipal
Corporation was withdrawn.
6. The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the
Mayor-in-Council has filed this petition.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 6/26/2026
7:37:32 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:16867
3 WP-24236-2026
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Taazia

procession and fair (Mela) is a customary tradition which is being followed
for time immemorial. He submits that every year the petitioner organizes this
fair (Mela) and holds the procession of Taazia without there being any
violation of law. Therefor, once permission was granted by the competent
officer of the Municipal Corporation, the Mayor-in-Council could not have
withdrawn the same without giving any opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner as it is not only violates the right of the petitioner to follow
devotion of their choice which is an integral part of person liberty but also
violates the principles of natural justice. He also argues that no outstanding
dues of the last year fees are there as the petitioner has deposited the entire
amount. Also he submits that no notice of any kind was issued pointing out
violation of any condition during the Mela of the last year.It has further been
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the fair (Mela) is
being held traditionally along with the procession and once the permission
was granted the petitioner and the concerned stake-holders have taken steps
pursuant to permission as the date for starting fair (Mela) is 26.06.2026 itself
and the permission has been withdrawn in the night of 25.06.2026. Thus, the
steps pursuant to permission which have been taken by the petitioner and the
stake-holders will now go in vain and cause irreparable loss to the petitioner
and all other stake-holders. He thus submits that considering the fact that the
cancellation is without opportunity of hearing the same is not sustaining in
the eyes of law. He thus prays for quashing of the order dated 25.06.2026
(annexure P-7).
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 6/26/2026
7:37:32 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:16867
4 WP-24236-2026
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation

vehemently opposed the prayer and points out that in fact the issue has now
already been settled by competent court of law in first appeal, she submits
that a perusal of para-4 of the judgment of the First Appellate Court passed
on 13.09.2024 in RCA No. 87/2019 (Annexure P/2) would show that in fact
even traditionally also the petitioner used only 0.02 acres of land and that too
only for immersion of Taazia and not for holding fair (Mela). She also
submits that looking to the fact that for the last year, the entire fee was not
deposited and also the fact that the conditions subject to which permission
was granted were violated, the petitioner does not deserve to be given
permission for this year and the MIC has correctly taken the decision. Apart
from this, the learned counsel also states that this decision has been taken in
the larger public interest as the cooperative society of other communities and
even other stake holders of the area have opposed to holding Mela in the
area for which permission was granted. Thus, she submits that the MIC has
taken a well thought of and well reasoned decision in the interest of general
public which should not be interfered with. She also submits that the Mela is
not traditional in nature. Thus, in any case it cannot be treated as an
indefeasible right of the petitioner to hold Mela.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the case file.
10. The Municipal Corporation has granted permission to the present
petitioner vide order dated 25.06.2026 (Annexure P/6). A perusal of the same
would show that the competent officer of the respondent/Municipal
Corporation after considering the application submitted by the petitioner on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 6/26/2026
7:37:32 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:16867
5 WP-24236-2026
03.06.2026, passed this order subject to deposit of an amount of

Rs.1,36,007/- which, according to the order, is the fee for holding the Mela
and for immersion of Taazia at Dhobi Ghat in an area around 3 acres of land.
The order itself provides the words "Paramparaagat Mele Ka Aayojan".
There are conditions mentioned in the order itself. It has nowhere been
mentioned in the entire order that last year conditions subject to which
permission was given were violated. The counsel for the respondent
No.3/Municipal Corporation did not bring on record or even pointed out
orally any document which could show that for violation of conditions last
year any action was taken by the Municipal Corporation. As such apparently
there is no material at all to demonstrate that on last occasion any conditions
were violated by the petitioner.
11. Apart from above, it is indisputable that the application for
permission was given by the petitioner on 03.06.2026 which is evident from
the order dated 25.06.2026 itself. However, the concerned officer waited till
25.06.2026 for granting permission for holding Mela from 26.06.2026 to
28.06.2026 and then this permission was withdrawn by the MIC without
giving any notice to the petitioner in the night of 25.06.2026. It is only
during the day of 26.06.2026 when the Mela has already begun, the
petitioner came to know about the cancellation of the permission. In the
considered view of this Court, the manner in which the entire issue has been
handled by the Municipal Corporation is not in accordance with the proper
administrative decision-making process. In all fairness, if the request was for
granting permission to hold Mela from 26.06.2026 then the decisions on the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 6/26/2026
7:37:32 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:16867
6 WP-24236-2026
same, after considering each and every aspect, should have been made well

before the said date, so that if any issue crops up then the same could have
been held in timely manner.
12. Now, looking to the fact that permission was granted only on
25.06.2026 for holding mela from 26.06.2026, i.e. from today itself, there is
no time to decide the larger issue regarding character of the mela whether it
is traditional in nature or not, in any case in the considered view of this court
these proceedings may not be proper forum for deciding that whether the
Mela is being traditionally held or not. However, the permission itself as
quoted above gives a traditional colour to the Mela.
13. The learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation by referring to
Annexure P/2, the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court has argued
that in fact in the judgment itself, it has been mentioned that only 0.02 acres
of land was being used by the petitioner for immersion of Taazia, however,
this is not even an issue involved in the present case for the simple reason
that if the judgment at Annexure P/2 is taken as final then also what it holds
is that land in question is of the title of Municipal Corporation, Indore.
However, this issue of title is not at all involved in the present case, what
involved is the permission granted by the Municipal Corporation. Thus, even
if title belongs to the Municipal Corporation still it is the validity of the
decision withdrawing permission granted by the Municipal Corporation
without giving any opportunity of hearing is involved in the present case. As
such, the dispute regarding title of the land is not relevant for the purposes of
the present case.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 6/26/2026
7:37:32 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:16867
7 WP-24236-2026
14. As regards the legal right of the petitioner to hold Mela, this Court

refrains from dwelling into this issue for the simple reason that for this year
permission has already been granted and looking to the timeline and the
manner in which it has been done, it is certainly a case of legitimate
expectation because on 25.06.2026, the permission was granted and from
26.06.2026 i.e. the very next day, the Mela was to start, thus the petitioner is
correct in saying that the steps have already been taken and the Mela has
already been started. In the considered view of this Court looking to the fact
that without giving an opportunity, the order passed by the competent
authority has been cancelled to the prejudice of the petitioner, the petition
deserves to be allowed. Consequently, the Resolution of the MIC dated
25.06.2026 (Annexure P/7) is hereby quashed.
15. Resultant to quashing of the decision of the MIC, the permission as
contained in Annexure P/6 stands revived with all its conditions imposed.
16. Looking to the issue involved in the present case and the manner
in which the application was dealt with, this Court before parting with the
case considers it as apposite to issue following directions to the parties
herein:-

(i) From the next year onwards, the petitioner shall
submit its application for permission to hold precession
and Mela well in advance at least by two and a half
months.

(ii) The Municipal Corporation shall decide the said
application at least before 30 days of start of the Mela.

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 6/26/2026
7:37:32 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:16867
8 WP-24236-2026
17. It is hereby clarified that the Court has not decided the right of

holding Mela by the petitioner at the place in question (as detailed in para 5.2
of the petition) every years, this decision pertains to holding the Mela for this
year only. The parties are free to raise that issue independently if they wish
to do so.
18. With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of.
(PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
soumya

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 6/26/2026
7:37:32 PM