The Allahabad High Court has closed proceedings under Contempt of Courts Act against the District Magistrate and Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) of Bareilly for restraining certain persons from offering namaz at a private property in Mohammad Ganj village [Tarik Khan v State of UP & 2 Others]
In January, a Division Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan had ruled that no permission was needed for holding a religious prayer meeting in a private property in Uttar Pradesh.
However, a resident of Mohammad Ganj village later accused the authorities of failure to comply with the verdict and sought action against authorities for interfering with the prayers at his premises.
The Bench led by Justice Sreedharan had then summoned the District Magistrate and SSP of Bareilly. It had also ordered protection for the house owner Haseen Khan.
Following a recent roster change at the High Court, the matter was then listed before a Bench of Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Garima Prashad. On March 25, the Court said it was satisfied with the explanations provided by the officers and discharged them in the contempt proceedings.
The Bench also recorded the State's submission that under the garb of protection provided by the Court, the petitioner was gathering at least 52-62 persons for namaz at the property. The State also said that such practice could prove detrimental to the peace and tranquility of the area.
Following this, the counsel appearing for the petitioner made a statement that he "will not collect a large number of persons for offering Namaz over the property which is subject matter of present petition."
The Court then disposed of the petition with a hope that he will abide by the undertaking. It also granted a liberty to the State to act against him in case of any violation.
"In case the petitioner violates the aforesaid undertaking and collects in large number to offer Namaz at the property which is subject matter in the present writ petition, and if there is threat to peace and tranquility in the area, the respondents authorities are at liberty to act in accordance with law," the Bench said.
Further, it also recorded the petitioner's statement that he does not require any security. Therefore, the Court directed the State to withdraw the security provided to him earlier.
The Court also directed the State to withdraw its action against the petitioner and other persons.
"We further direct the State Authorities to immediately withdraw the challan issued against the petitioner and other persons," it ordered.
Advocate Rajesh Kumar Gautam appeared for the petitioner.
Additional Advocate General Anoop Trivedi, Additional Government Advocate Sameer Shankar and Standing Counsel Anubhav Shukla appeared for the State.
[Read Order]