PETITIONER:
ACHAN RIZVI (III)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF U. P.
DATE OF JUDGMENT28/11/1992
BENCH:
VENKATACHALLIAH, M.N. (J)
BENCH:
VENKATACHALLIAH, M.N. (J)
RAY, G.N. (J)
CITATION:
1994 SCC (6) 756 JT 1992 (6) 725
1993 SCALE (1)174
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
ORDER
1. We have heard all the learned counsel at quite some
length on the question whether the prayer in IA No. 5 for
the appointment of a ‘Receiver’ requires to be granted or
not.
2. On 25-11-1992, we had occasion to say in the course of
the order:
“It appears to us that if no assurance of an
effective implementation of the Court’s orders
is forthcoming from the State Government, it
will be our constitutional duty not merely to
expect but to exact obedience in an
appropriate manner. This step, we believe,
would become necessary to preserve the meaning
and integrity of the constitutional
institutions
757
and their interrelationships, essential to the
preservation of the chosen way of the life of
the Indian people under the Constitution.
Shri Venugopal shared our concern and
expressed the hope he was not in a position
to hold out any more than that at this stage
that given a week’s time, the Government would
negotiate with the religious groups to avoid a
collision course and persuade them to take a
rational view of the situation.”
3. Today, the Special Secretary to the Government of Uttar
Pradesh, Home Department, in the context of what Shri
Venugopal calls a major, markedly reassuring and eminently
appropriate progress in the mood of the situation, has filed
an affidavit on behalf of the State Government which,
referring to the efforts made by the State Government in
regard to the negotiations and discussions with the
religious groups which have called for a Kar Seva from 6-12-
1992, states:
“2. The State Government would like to place
on record the further progress the
negotiations have taken. The ongoing process
of discussions and negotiations with the
religious leaders and the leaders of the VHP
have been fruitful as a result of which Smt
Rajmata Scindia, senior leader and trustee of
the VHP has sent a letter to the Chief
Minister of U.P. which is self-explanatory.
The letter is annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure 1.
3. As already stated, the State Government
is now confident that as long as the writ
petitions regarding acquisitions are pending
and the interim orders of the High Court are
in force no construction, permanent or
temporary, will take place though to satisfy
the religious aspirations of the Ram Bhaktas
Kar Seva other than by way of construction as
stated may take place.
4. The State Government is confident that
there will be no movement of construction
machinery or construction materials into the
acquired land of 2.77 acres and, therefore,
the question of machinery or building material
being moved from the site of the Lakshman
Temple or Seshavatar Temple (which is adjacent
to the acquired land) into the acquired 2.77
acres does not arise.”
Annexure I referred to by the Special
Secretary in the affidavit states:
“In response to the discussion with the
Government of Uttar Pradesh, I concur with the
statement of Swami Chinmayanandji dated 27-11-
1992, that Kar Seva would be performed on
6-12-1992, without violating the Court order.”
4. The State Government has also filed an undertaking
before us to this
effect:
“ State Government assures the Court that it
will ensure that no construction machinery or
construction material will move into the
acquired land and no construction activity
will take place or carried out as long as the
High Court interim orders are in force in the
writ petition pending before it relating to
the land acquisition.”
758
5. Shri Venugopal submits this, indeed, is an achievement
of the State Government having regard to the very sensitive
nature of the subject and the highly excited mood of the
religious groups over this emotive issue.
6. The State Government, during the course of submissions
on its behalf, expressed its readiness and willingness to
ensure that, apart from what the obligations emanating from
and implicit in the undertaking, no constructional machinery
or equipment now located in the area of and used for Sri
Lakshman Temple, adjacent to the acquired land, will be
shifted from their present location, and that in the name of
‘Kar Seva’ no constructional activity, either temporary or
permanent, would take place or allowed to take place on the
acquired land. In this context, the State Government
explains that ‘Kar Seva’ would be a symbolic occasion for
carrying on certain religious activities to assuage the
feelings of the devotees and will not be allowed to be
exploited for any constructional activities, symbolic or
otherwise. The Uttar Pradesh Government also agrees to
ensure that character of the acquired land will not be
allowed to be altered. Shri Venugopal submitted that the
whole complexion of the problem has vastly changed as a
result of these strenuous and sincere endeavors of the State
Government to persuade the religious groups and their
leaders. He submitted that it is only appropriate that the
Court should take into account and appreciate these positive
and constructive developments that have since occurred in
the larger interests of the country at the instance of the
State Government and should record that the need to make any
orders on IA No. 5 does not exist at all. Shri Venugopal
stated that such expansive demands as are made through IA
No. 5 would only serve to aggravate a situation which,
otherwise, is wholly under control and within the framework
of law.
7. Shri O.P. Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing in
support of IA No. 5, however, cautioned us that any undue
reliance on the evanescent assurance of the State Government
might lead to serious situation developing on the spot as
indeed, according to him, the track record of the Government
in the schism between its assurances and performances would
not justify such total and implicit trust. In view of its
past record on this issue the State Government has
disentitled itself to the credibility of its intentions and
assurances. Shri Sharma said that once large mass of
humanity is allowed to congregate on the spot, the State
Government on its own self-confessed inability or
disinclination to use force against the devotees would
achieve indirectly what it is forbidden to do directly.
Shri Sharma asserts that the previous experience of what
happened between 6-7-1992 and 26-7-1992, should put the
Court on guard and examine very closely whether the State
Government is adopting a stratagem to enable collection of
large mass of people who ultimately will be allowed to and
formally blamed for taking (sic law) into its own hands and
pleading its own helplessness.
8. On an anxious consideration of the matter, we think
that while the submissions of Shri Sharma cannot altogether
be brushed aside, the positive side of the developments that
have occurred at the instance and initiative of the State
Government should not be belittled but recognised. The
State
759
Government has come forward with an emphatic assurance and
undertaking that the orders of the High Court will be obeyed
and implemented and that no constructional activity will be
carried on or permitted to be carried on by whatsoever
agency on the acquired land. It will, therefore, be the
total responsibility of the State Government to ensure that
the orders of the High Court or of this Court are
implemented. We think, in view of these developments we
should abstain from granting the prayer in IA No. 5 at this
stage. If, however, the complexion of the problem changes
which might justify a further consideration of IA No. 5 the
matter could be examined at the appropriate occasion and for
that purpose IA No. 5 will remain pending.
9. At the same time, we think, we should appoint a
Judicial Officer as an Observer of the situation. We
request the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to
spare the services of any District Judge in the State
Judicial Service for a period of 2 weeks in the first
instance to observe and monitor the situation and submit a
report to this Court whenever, in his opinion, developments
tending to be detrimental to the effectuation of this order
take place. This request may be communicated by Registrar
General of this Court to the Registrar of the Allahabad High
Court to be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the
High Court.
10. We thought that the decision of the State Government to
prevent any construction activity on the acquired land
should receive adequate publicity so that Kar Sevaks who,
having regard to the usual connotations of that expression,
might not be misled as to the purpose of their presence.
Shri Venugopal submits that the course of events in the
immediately following days would indicate that the stand of
the Government and the orders of this Court have received
due and adequate publicity and that the need for any special
procedure for publicity be considered thereafter. We agree.
11. Shri Venugopal also recalled to us that the terms of
the last paragraph of the order made on 25-11-1992 to the
effect that if any constructive response was forthcoming
from the State Government we might consider requesting the
High Court for an expeditious decision of the matter. Shri
Venugopal says that the State Government by its performance
is now entitled to seek Court’s consideration of this
prayer.
12. Indeed, in a matter of this nature, it is neither
advisable nor practicable to tell the High Court within what
timeframe it should render a judgment; but having regard to
what we said on the previous occasion, we request the High
Court to consider the expectations of the parties and the
requirements of justice and bestow on it such thought as it
might consider proper.
13. We direct this matter be listed on Monday, 30-11-1992,
at 2.00 p.m.
14. A copy of this order will go to the Registrar of the
Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench.
Court Masters
Note: Copies of this order be issued on 29-11-1992.
760