Law Respects Larger Interest Over Individual Interest: Orissa High Court Refuses To Pass Orders Against Temporary Puja Pandals On Road
The Orissa High Court was considering a Public Interest Litigation filed by the petitioner, who was aggrieved by the inaccessibility of his own house due to temporary puja pandals being erected on the public road.
While observing that law respects the larger interest over an individual interest if the fundamental right of a person overlaps the fundamental rights of a large section of the society, the Orissa High Court has refused to order complete stoppage of temporary puja pandals on public roads.
The High Court was considering a Public Interest Litigation filed by the petitioner, whose house is 50 meters away from the place where the pandal was put up temporarily for some days to perform the puja of Lord Ganesh or Goddess Durga. The petitioner claimed that there was a complete blockade of the road because of the same thereby making him unable to access his own house.
The Bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice M.S. Sahoo held, “Often question arises when the fundamental rights guaranteed to each and every individual as a citizen of the country is pitted against the fundamental rights enjoined by a large section of the society. There is no scintilla of doubt in our mind that if the fundamental right of a person is overlapping the fundamental rights of a large section of the society, the law respects the larger interest over an individual interest.”
“As we indicated hereinbefore that the larger public interest overshadowed an individual interest, we do not feel that there should be a complete stoppage of the performance of those religious ceremonies or the puja in the garb that it obstructs the movement of the vehicles and also access to the inhabitants of the said locality”, it added.
Advocate Laxman Pradhan represented the Petitioner while Additional Government Advocate Debashis Tripathy represented the Opposite Party.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the affidavits, the Bench noted that those pandals, where a large section of the society professes religion by offering puja, had never blocked the road in its entirety, but there was a 22 feet passage left for the commutation of vehicles, ensuring uninterrupted vehicular movement.“...it is an ardent duty of the State to see that there is no obstruction in a restrictive movement of the vehicles, at least the persons who reside in the locality will have an access for ingress and egress thereof”, it added.
It was the stand of the State that while granting the permission to perform such religious festivals, it was indicated that it would not block the road in its entirety but there should be sufficient and/or reasonable passage for movement of the vehicles. Considering that the larger public interest overshadowed an individual interest, the Bench did not feel that there should be a complete stoppage of the performance of those religious ceremonies or the puja in the garb that it obstructs the movement of the vehicles and also access to the inhabitants of the said locality.
The Bench further took note of the guideline issued by the Government, which was in tune with the provisions of the statute enacted in this regard, ensuring that every person should not be deprived of access to their respective homes, nor should the vehicle be completely stopped, denying such right.
“Suffice to say that while granting such license to a community in performing such religious festivals, the Government should ensure that there is no complete disruption in the movement of the vehicles nor the person should be denied a passage for ingress and egress. Adequate distance should be strictly adhered to, which makes the movement of the emergency vehicles, so that in case of any emergency, such facilities and/or amenities are available at their doorstep”, it stated.
The Bench also ordered that the Government should maintain the permissible sound limit while organising those festivals and the deadline which is fixed beyond which it should not be allowed.
“The Government shall also ensure that the temporary structures put on the public road should be of such measurement which would not eclipse the right of movement, as the reasonable restrictions are permissible and adequate space should be left for vehicular movement”, it ordered.
Cause Title: Sarat Kumar Gajendra v. Collector & District Magistrate, Khordha (Neutral Citation: 2026:OHC:220-DB)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocate Laxman Pradhan
Opposite Party: Additional Government Advocate Debashis Tripathy
Intervener: Senior Advocate P.K. Ray