The Bombay High Court stayed the District Magistrate’s (DM) order prohibiting people from offering prayers at a mosque in Erandol Taluka, Jalgaon, has been stayed by the Bombay High Court for a period of two weeks.
Justice RM Joshi of the Aurangabad bench stated that it appears that the DM issued the order without being fully convinced of the likelihood of a breach of peace.
As a result, the court directed the handover of the mosque keys to the Jumma Masjid Trust Committee, which is responsible for maintaining the mosque.
“Prima facie perusal of the order impugned shows that there is no finding recorded about the Authority being satisfied that there is likelihood of breach of peace on account of alleged dispute…Section 144 of Cr.P.C no doubt provides the powers to the District Magistrate even to take suo moto action, however, existence of likelihood of causing of disturbance of public peace or tranquility is sine qua non to assume such power. In prima facie opinion of this Court for want of such findings being recorded makes impugned order vulnerable and not sustainable in law”, the bench stated.
The Hindu group Pandavwada Sangharsh Samiti (PSS) has alleged that the mosque in question bears resemblance to a temple and has accused the local Muslim community of encroachment. The Trust responsible for maintaining the mosque has asserted that it possesses records proving the existence of the structure since at least 1861.
The current situation arose from a complaint filed by the Pandavwada Sangharsh Samiti with the District Magistrate on May 18. The petitioner Trust stated that a notice was issued to them based on the complaint, and a hearing was scheduled for June 27. However, the hearing did not take place due to the DM’s unavailability. On July 11, the DM issued an interim restraining order under Sections 144 and 145 of the CrPC, directing the tahsildar to take charge of the mosque. As a result, the petitioner Trust approached the High Court challenging this order.
On July 13, a division bench of Justices RG Avachat and SA Deshmukh observed that a single-judge bench would handle the matter since the order was passed by the quasi-judicial authority of the District Magistrate under the CrPC.
The authorities opposing the plea argued that the Collector’s order was interim and not final, and a detailed hearing was scheduled before issuing a final decision.
The court dismissed the authorities’ objection against the maintainability of the petition on the grounds of the existence of an alternate remedy.
The dispute over the ownership and purpose of the structure has been ongoing since the 1980s, with Hindu groups claiming association with the Pandavas, who were believed to have spent years in exile in the area.
Consequently, the court issued notice to the respondents and posted the matter for further hearing on August 1, 2023.
