New Delhi: The Delhi High Court Wednesday dismissed a plea challenging the DDMA’s decision prohibiting devotees from performing Chhath Puja on the banks of the Yamuna here.
There was no merit in the petition, the high court said, adding that the plea filed by two societies did not point out as to how the devotees insist that they are entitled to perform the puja only on the Yamuna banks.
“They have not given any explanation as to why they did not approach the respondents if they were desirous of having additional designated sites in the area even after the list of designated sites was made public,” Justice Rekha Palli said and orally observed that the petition was only for publicity.
The court, while dismissing the petition, said the petitioner’s counsel does not dispute the fact that the puja has already commenced today and no order for creation of additional sites can be passed.
PM to release tiger census data at mega event in Mysuru to mark 50 years of Project Tiger
Money-laundering case: Court adjourns hearing on Manish Sisodia’s bail plea till April 5
Formation of new management committee for Ullal Dargah illegal, says Dargah president Abdul Rasheed
Budget delay: Delhi Assembly passes resolution for probe against chief secy, finance secy, others
The court said it was in agreement with the government counsel that the orders issued by the authorities take care of religious sentiments of all devotees and even though COVID-19 has not fully disappeared, the respondents have ensured and taken steps that devotees are not put to inconvenience.
The petitioner organisations challenged the Delhi Disaster Management Authority’s October 29 order by which Chhath Puja celebration was permitted in Delhi but certain restrictions were imposed.
The authorities permitted devotees to perform Chhath Puja at 800 designated sites set up in Delhi, however, no celebration was allowed at the banks of River Yamuna, it said, adding that the rights devotees were being curtailed without any justified reason.
The Delhi government’s counsel opposed the petition saying there was no explanation given for approaching the court at a belated stage even when the order was issued by the authorities on October 29.