Tag: 上海后花园ARF

Gandhi Statue Not A Place Of Religious Worship: Karnataka HC Dismisses PIL Against Bar [Read Order]

first_imgNews UpdatesGandhi Statue Not A Place Of Religious Worship: Karnataka HC Dismisses PIL Against Bar [Read Order] Mustafa Plumber9 Sep 2020 8:24 PMShare This – x”If we look at the thoughts and the views propagated by the Father of the Nation during his lifetime, it is impossible to accept that his statue is a place of public religious worship. The Father of the Nation has a unique place. He was above all religions. He was truly a democrat who never liked human beings being worshipped.”The Karnataka High Court has said that by no stretch of imagination it can hold that the statue of the Father of the Nation, Mahatma Gandhi, is a ‘place of worship’ or a ‘religious institution’. The Court made this observation while dismissing a Public Interest Litigation filed by one Advocate A V Amarnathan seeking to cancel the licence granted by the State Excise department…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Karnataka High Court has said that by no stretch of imagination it can hold that the statue of the Father of the Nation, Mahatma Gandhi, is a ‘place of worship’ or a ‘religious institution’. The Court made this observation while dismissing a Public Interest Litigation filed by one Advocate A V Amarnathan seeking to cancel the licence granted by the State Excise department to Tonique Bar and Restaurant on account of its alleged proximity to a Gandhi Statue.. He claimed that the definition of ‘Religious Institution’ under Sub-rule (3) of Rule of 3 of the Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions) Rules, 1967, will have to be considered. He urged the court that as the prayers are offered near the statue of the Father of the Nation, it will have to be held as a ‘religious institution’. A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice N S Sanjay Gowda rejected this argument stating : “By no stretch of imagination, we can hold that the statue of the Father of the Nation is a ‘religious institution’. The emphasis in Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of said Rules of 1967 is on a place of public religious worship. It is impossible to accept that the statue of the Father of the Nation can be a ‘religious Institution’.” The bench added:”If we look at the thoughts and the views propagated by the Father of the Nation during his lifetime, it is impossible to accept that his statue is a place of public religious worship. The Father of the Nation has a unique place. He was above all religions. He was truly a democrat who never liked human beings being worshipped.” Amarnathan had in his petition claimed that the statue of the Father of the Nation, Bal Bhavan in Cubbon Park, a Church and the Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police were situated within a distance of 100 meters from the premises of the bar. The second contention was that there is a breach of Rule 5 of the Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions) Rules, 1967. However, by order dated July 9, the objections based on the statue of the Father of the Nation and Bal Bhavan were excluded. As regards other objections, a direction was issued to the jurisdictional Tahsildar to carry out the exercise of measuring the distance with the help of a Government Surveyor. Additional Government Advocate Vijaykumar A Patil, filed a memo of compliance which recorded that the distance between the main entrance of the premises of the restaurant and the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police through the footpath is 126.50 meters. Secondly, it was stated that the distance between the main entrance of the fifth respondent and the entrance gate of St. Martha’s Church is 144.00 meters. On Monday, the petitioner also relied upon Subrule (2-A) of Rule 5 of the said Rules of 1967. However, the bench said “The petitioner has not pleaded in the petition that in view of Sub-rule (2-A) of Rule 5 of the said Rules of 1967, the application for licence of the fifth respondent ought to have been rejected.” The bench concluded by saying “As we find that there is no merit in any of the objections raised by the petitioner, it is not necessary to go into the question of locus of the petitioner. Accordingly, we find that there is no merit in the petition and the same is rejected.”Click Here To Download Order[Read Order] Next Storylast_img read more

read more