Delhi High Court permits Ramlila after administrator’s concealment of permission request, replaces him and orders takeover of society records

Respondent No. 7, Nav Shree Manav Dharm Ramlila Committee, sought permission to conduct Shri Ramlila from 11 October 2026 to 21 October 2026 on vacant land belonging to Dera Ismail Khan House Building Cooperative Society Ltd.

The Committee stated that it had conducted Ramlila at the site since 2019, had applied to the Society’s Administrator, Mr. V.K. Rastogi, on 20 August 2026, and had paid ₹1,50,000 through cheque, which was encashed.

By an earlier order dated 14 September 2026, the Court had been informed that neither the Society’s Administrator nor the trustees of the SADE Trust had granted permission for any event on the land.

On the present application, the Administrator admitted receiving the Committee’s application and produced a letter dated 21 August 2026 addressed to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies seeking authority to grant permission.

The Court held that the material facts regarding the application, encashment of the cheque, and the Administrator’s communication to the Registrar had not been disclosed on 14 September 2026.

Whether Respondent No. 7 should be permitted to conduct the Ramlila on the Society’s land despite the earlier order restraining use of the land for events without the Court’s permission.

Whether the Administrator’s failure to disclose the pending application, encashment of ₹1,50,000, and request for authorization from the Registrar warranted administrative directions concerning the Society.

What safeguards and conditions were necessary to regulate the Ramlila, preserve the Society’s property, and ensure compliance with the Court’s earlier directions.

The Court applied its supervisory and inherent jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to regulate the use and protection of property involved in pending proceedings and to issue consequential interim directions ensuring compliance with its orders.

It applied the principle that material facts bearing on an interim order must be candidly disclosed to the Court; suppression or non-disclosure may justify modification of the order and corrective directions.

The Court also applied the principle that permission for a temporary event on disputed or Society-controlled land may be granted subject to safeguards concerning administration, accounts, security, sanitation, traffic management, restoration of the property, and continuing judicial supervision.

The Court found that the factual basis of the 14 September order—that no permission had been sought or granted and that the event appeared to involve trespassers—was materially incomplete because the Administrator had received the Committee’s application, accepted payment, and sought authorization from the Registrar.

Given the Committee’s asserted history of conducting Ramlila at the site since 2019 and the Administrator’s failure to disclose these facts, the Court modified its earlier order and granted temporary permission for the event.

At the same time, to prevent unauthorized control of the Society’s affairs and protect its records and finances, it directed the Registrar to replace the Administrator, take control of the Society’s records, verify the ₹1,50,000 payment, and change the bank signatories.

The permission was made conditional upon maintaining safety, cleanliness, and traffic regulation during the event and vacating and restoring the land after its conclusion.

It directed the Registrar of Cooperative Societies to appoint a new Administrator within ten days, take control of the Society’s records, examine its accounts, verify the credit and non-withdrawal of ₹1,50,000, and ensure transfer of records and bank-account control from Mr. Rastogi.

Mr. Rastogi was restrained from visiting the Society’s office after handover, while the new Administrator was directed to comply with the earlier order and administer the Society under the Registrar’s supervision.

The Ramlila Committee was required to vacate the land within one week after 21 October 2026, remove garbage, and restore the land to its original condition; its President and Secretary were made personally responsible for visitor safety, cleanliness, and traffic management, with police cooperation directed as necessary.

The order dated 14 September 2026 was modified only to this extent, and all remaining directions were continued.