Why Chhattisgarh High Court paved way for installation of this goddess idol

“It is a settled principle of law that when a consequential order is challenged without questioning the foundational action, the writ petition is liable to fail on that ground alone.”

The present petition has been filed for the third time without curing the foundational defects, as the technical approval, NIT (Notice Inviting Tender) and the subsequent order passed by the elected municipal council remain unchallenged, the court held on February 24.

Petition is liable to fail

• No material has been placed to demonstrate that the action of installing an idol violates any statutory provision.
• In the present petition, admittedly, neither the technical approval nor the tender notice is challenged by the shopkeepers.
• The petition has been filed for the third time without curing the foundational defects, as the technical approval, tender notice and the subsequent resolution passed by the elected municipal council remain unchallenged.
• Repeatedly filing the petition without changing the defects of the petition is unacceptable and a misuse of the process of law.
• The scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited to examining the decision-making process and not the merits of administrative decisions.

Building of religious structure in public 

• The shopkeepers, through advocate Pallav Mishra, contend that the idol in the middle of the road would obstruct traffic movement at an already congested square, creating inconvenience to the general public, and blocking the way to their shops, thereby seriously affecting their right to carry on trade and business.
• Pallav submitted that the petition filed earlier by the shopkeepers was withdrawn with liberty to file afresh, as the contractor had not been made a party, but now they have filed a petition challenging the order passed by the municipal council. 
• He argued that the petition is not directed against any religious sentiment nor against the installation of an idol per se, but is confined to the legality of the decision of the respondent authorities in permitting the erection of a permanent religious structure in the middle of a public road.
• Mishra contended that the petition has been filed purely on the ground that the proposed erection is on government land forming part of a public street and square, and such action is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India.
• The counsel submitted that the land in question is admittedly part of Balani Chowk, which is a public square and roadway under the control of the municipal council.
• The land is a public street vested in the local body for public use; the respondent authorities cannot divert such land for the erection of a permanent religious idol or structure, as the same would amount to permitting encroachment upon public property. 

Installation of idol is unlawful

• It is argued that the Supreme Court has categorically directed that no new religious structures shall be constructed on public land, and therefore, any order granting permission for such erection is unlawful.
• It is also submitted that the action of the respondent authority is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 (ensures non-discriminatory, equal treatment) and 19(1)(g) (protects economic freedom, both subject to reasonable restrictions) of the Constitution of India.
• The shopkeepers carrying on lawful trade at the said square have a fundamental right to carry on their occupation, trade and business, subject to reasonable restrictions.
• The installation of a permanent idol in the middle of a narrow and congested road would inevitably obstruct traffic and block the way to their establishments. 
• The state cannot, under the guise of administrative discretion, curtail the shopkeepers’ constitutional rights by permitting an activity which is itself impermissible in law.
• The counsel submitted that the order dated April 4, 2025, issued by the respondent authority is liable to be quashed.

Precedents in support

• Union of India v. State of Gujarat, it was held that unauthorised construction of religious structures, wherein all the state governments and union territories were directed to ensure that no permission is granted for the construction of any temple, mosque, church, gurudwara or any other religious structure on public land.
• Society for Fast Justice v. State of Maharashtra reiterated that the state and its instrumentalities have no authority in law to grant permission for the erection of religious structures on public roads or government land meant for public use.

Reliance on precedent, misplaced: State

• Priyank Rathi, advocate appearing for the state, submitted that the petition is misconceived and devoid of merit, as the decision has been taken by the competent municipal authority strictly within the ambit of its statutory powers.
• It is contended that the land in question vests in the municipal council, and the decision regarding the installation of the idol has been taken after due administrative consideration, keeping in view the public sentiment. 
• It was submitted that the reliance placed by the shopkeepers on the Supreme Court precedents is misplaced, as those directions prohibit unauthorised constructions and encroachments on public land, whereas in the present case, the action is being undertaken by the municipal authority itself and not by any private encroacher.
• There is no material on record to demonstrate that the proposed structure is contrary to any statutory prohibition or binding guideline
• It was argued that the allegations regarding obstruction of traffic and interference with the way of the shopkeepers’ shops are speculative and unsupported by any technical material, such as a traffic assessment report or site plan.
• In the absence of arbitrariness or violation of any statutory or constitutional provision, no interference is warranted, and the petition deserves to be dismissed.

Beautification plan

• The project is part of a beautification plan duly approved by the competent authorities and approved by a resolution of the elected municipal council. 
• Shikhar Shukla, counsel appearing for the municipal council, submitted that the petition is wholly misconceived, not maintainable and liable to be dismissed at the threshold. 
• It is contended that the shopkeepers have challenged only the work order dated April 4, 2025, whereas the said order stems from the prior order issued by the municipal council for beautification and installation of the idol of goddess Maa Parmeshwari.
• Shukla argued that neither the technical approval nor the tender was challenged in the petition, and in the absence of the same, the consequential work order cannot be independently questioned.
• It was argued that the petitioners have approached this court for the third time on the same cause of action; the earlier petition was withdrawn on January 20, 2026, without securing liberty to file afresh. Thereafter, it was withdrawn again on January 22, 2026.
• The counsel submitted that the allegation that the idol is being erected in the middle of the road is factually incorrect. 
• The proposed site is situated on the side of the road within the municipal compound area.
• The decision has been taken in accordance with statutory powers vested in the municipal council, and there is no violation of any binding direction of the Supreme Court. 

Commercial squares of city: Background

• The petitioners are the shop owners carrying on their respective businesses at Balani Chowk, Rajendra Ward, Mungeli, District Mungeli, which is one of the busiest and narrowest commercial squares of the city.
• In the year 2023, the chief municipal officer of the municipal council, Mungeli, proposed the installation of an idol of goddess Maa Parmeshwari in the middle of the said square.
• The shopkeepers raised objections to such a proposal because the construction of any permanent structure in the midst of the road would cause serious traffic congestion and adversely affect their business activities. 
• The shopkeepers expressed their consent for the installation of the idol or construction of a temple at an alternative suitable place near the square, and submitted a representation to that effect.
• The proposal was earlier halted, but in the year 2025, the respondent authorities again initiated steps for the installation of the idol at the same location.
• Thereafter, the municipal council issued the order dated April 4, 2025, deciding to proceed with the installation of the idol in the middle of Balani Chowk.
• Upon learning of the same, the shopkeepers submitted fresh representations before the respondents, objecting to the proposed construction; however, no action was taken on their representations.