HC order on Surat mosques

But the court held that a minaret in the Minarawali Masjid and a 20 sq metres portion of Golwali Masjid are required to be demolished for enabling SMC to widen the Bhagal main road. Going by the maps prepared in the case, the court held that portion shown in green color will not be demolished, but the parts shown in pink color can be removed and acquired by the authorities.

However, at the request of the petitioners, the division bench of Justice R A Mehta and Justice M S Shah, ordered that status quo be maintained for six weeks so as to enable the petitioners to move Supreme Court.

SMC had issued public notice in November 1988 inviting objections against Surat Urban Development Corporation’s draft development plan, which included provision for widening the Bhagal Main Road, along which the mosques are situated. Later, the SMC standing committee prescribed a fresh road-line requiring the road to be widened from existing 40 feet to 60 feet. Since a portion of both the mosques fell on the proposed road-line, the trusts lodged objections, which were rejected, and on October 7, 1995, the SMC director of planning asked trustees of the mosques to remove the demarcated portion.

The petitioners contended that provisions of Section 212 of the BPMC Act are violative of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution so far as they apply to the places of religious worship, and that the SMC orders are violating the provisions of the Places of Worship Act. Besides, the SMC orders also violated the corporation standing committee’s May 3, 1951 resolution, providing that places of worship shall be excluded from roadlines, the petition contended.

However, G N Desai, counsel for SMC, had submitted that the 1951 resolution was a one-time resolution by the then municipality dealing with the traffic prevailing at that time. Besides, the Bhagal main road, where the two mosques are located, is a congested road, it was contended.

While passing the order, the court observed that minaret of the Minarawali Masjid was not used for offering prayers or worship and so it cannot be considered as an essential part of the prayer. “It (minaret) cannot be treated as having such particular significance that it can be permitted to override wider public interest,” the court observed. But about the Golwali Masjid, the court observed that needs of traffic did not justify demolishing a portion (including prayer hall) of the mosque.