The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently restored permission granted for a traditional Taazia procession and a three-day Mela (fair) to be organised at Dhobi Ghat in Indore during Muharram. The Court set aside a resolution passed by the Mayor-in-Council (MIC) of the Indore Municipal Corporation that had withdrawn the permission earlier granted to the organising committee. The Court held that cancelling the permission without giving an opportunity of hearing to the organisers was not in accordance with proper administrative decision-making principles.
The case was filed by the Waqf Karbala Intejamia Committee, which had been organising the Taazia procession and associated Mela traditionally every year after obtaining necessary permissions from the authorities. For the year 2026, the committee submitted an application seeking permission for conducting the event at Dhobi Ghat. The competent authority of the Municipal Corporation granted permission on June 25, 2026, subject to payment of prescribed charges. The Mela was scheduled to take place from June 26 to June 28, 2026.
However, shortly after granting permission, the Mayor-in-Council passed a resolution withdrawing the approval. The cancellation was reportedly based on concerns regarding compliance with conditions imposed during previous events and issues relating to payment of fees. The organisers challenged this decision before the High Court, arguing that the permission was cancelled without any notice or opportunity to explain their position.
The petitioners argued that the event was a traditional religious procession and fair that had been conducted for several years. They submitted that all required formalities had been completed and that no notice of any violation of earlier conditions had ever been issued to them. According to the committee, the sudden withdrawal of permission immediately before the event caused serious prejudice and affected their ability to organise the programme.
The Municipal Corporation opposed the petition and defended the cancellation. It argued that concerns existed regarding the manner in which the Mela was being conducted and that previous conditions may not have been fully complied with. The Corporation also submitted that objections had been raised by other groups regarding holding the Mela at the particular location. It was argued that the decision was taken considering public interest and administrative concerns.
Justice Pavan Kumar Dwivedi of the Madhya Pradesh High Court examined the manner in which the permission was granted and later withdrawn. The Court noted that the permission order had been issued by the competent authority after considering the application and that the organisers had been allowed to conduct the event after payment of the required amount.
The Court observed that the permission order itself recognised the traditional nature of the Mela. It also noted that the order cancelling permission did not clearly mention any specific violation committed by the organisers during previous events. The Bench found that there was insufficient material to justify the sudden withdrawal of permission.
A major issue considered by the Court was the absence of a hearing before cancellation. The Bench held that when an authority grants permission and later seeks to withdraw it, especially when such withdrawal affects rights and arrangements already made, principles of natural justice require that the affected party should ordinarily be given an opportunity to present its case.
The Court observed that the manner in which the matter was handled by the Municipal Corporation was not proper. The Bench noted that the application had been pending and the permission was granted very close to the date of the event. If the administration had concerns, they should have been examined earlier so that a timely decision could have been taken rather than cancelling permission at the last moment.
The High Court also considered the principle of legitimate expectation. Since permission had already been granted for the event beginning the following day, the organisers had a reasonable expectation that the programme would proceed unless there were valid legal grounds for cancellation. The Court held that the sudden withdrawal of permission, without hearing the organisers, violated fairness in administrative action.
At the same time, the Court clarified that it was not deciding larger questions regarding the legal status or nature of the Mela permanently. The Bench stated that the present proceedings were not the appropriate forum to determine broader issues such as whether the event qualifies as a traditional fair in all circumstances. The Court limited its decision to examining the legality of the cancellation order.
The judgment reflects the balance between administrative powers and individual rights. Authorities have the responsibility to maintain public order and regulate public gatherings, particularly where large crowds and religious events are involved. However, such powers must be exercised through fair procedures and cannot be used arbitrarily.
The decision also reinforces the principle that administrative authorities must act reasonably and transparently. Even where public interest considerations exist, decisions affecting citizens or organisations must follow due process. A sudden cancellation of permission without hearing the affected party may not withstand judicial scrutiny.
The Court’s order restored the permission for the current year’s Taazia procession and Mela. However, it also issued directions for future events. The organisers were directed to submit applications well in advance, at least two and a half months before the proposed event. The Municipal Corporation was directed to decide such applications at least 30 days before the commencement of the Mela so that any concerns could be addressed in a timely manner.
The judgment is significant because it deals with the regulation of religious and public gatherings while emphasising procedural fairness. It does not prevent authorities from imposing reasonable conditions or taking action where genuine law-and-order concerns exist. Instead, it requires such action to be taken according to law.
In conclusion, the Madhya Pradesh High Court restored permission for the Taazia procession and Mela in Indore after finding that the Municipal Corporation had cancelled the approval without giving the organisers an opportunity to be heard. The ruling highlights that administrative decisions affecting public events must follow principles of fairness, transparency, and natural justice while allowing authorities to regulate gatherings in accordance with law.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.