COURT’S DECISION
The Delhi High Court directed that no coercive or adverse action may be taken against the concerned religious structure until the Religious Committee renders its recommendation. The Court emphasized that any future action by the DDA must strictly follow due process, including issuing a mandatory notice to the affected party before initiating any step.
The Court held the writ petition to be premature, given that no recommendation has yet been made, but safeguarded the petitioner’s rights by clarifying that any future adverse order may be challenged independently.
FACTS
The petitioner approached the Court challenging a communication dated 1 November 2024 issued by the Delhi Development Authority. The communication raised concerns regarding the religious property located in Rohini, New Delhi, prompting fears of imminent action, including possible demolition or sealing.
During the proceedings, counsel for the DDA informed the Court that the matter had been referred to the Religious Committee on 5 April 2025, and that no recommendation for action exists as of date. The DDA assured the Court that no step whatsoever would be taken until such recommendation is issued.
The petitioner expressed apprehension that any recommendation by the Religious Committee, once made, may be acted upon by the DDA without serving proper notice, thereby violating due process and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.
ISSUES
- Whether the writ petition challenging the DDA communication was premature, since the Religious Committee had not yet made any recommendation.
- Whether the DDA must serve a prior notice before taking any adverse action against the religious premises, even after a recommendation is made.
- Whether the petitioner retains the right to challenge any adverse order in future despite the present petition becoming premature.
PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS
The petitioner submitted that the impugned communication created an imminent threat of coercive action against a functioning religious structure. It was argued that the DDA must compulsorily provide a notice and opportunity of hearing before taking any action, as mandated by Supreme Court precedents concerning demolition or interference with religious places. The petitioner contended that even if the Religious Committee makes a recommendation, the DDA cannot act mechanically and must independently comply with principles of natural justice and statutory procedure. The petitioner therefore sought protective directions that would prevent unilateral action.
RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
The DDA submitted that the matter had been formally referred to the Religious Committee on 5 April 2025, and that no recommendation exists at present. It was emphasised that the DDA, in the absence of such recommendation, has no intention of acting against the property. On this basis, the DDA argued that the writ petition was premature and unnecessary at this stage. The respondents assured the Court that no action, demolition, sealing, or prohibition would occur until the Religious Committee’s decision is received.
ANALYSIS OF THE LAW
The Court examined the interplay between:
- Administrative action by statutory bodies,
- Oversight of the Religious Committee, and
- Due process obligations, particularly prior notice.
The Court noted that while a recommendation of the Religious Committee is a prerequisite for action against religious premises, the authorities are still bound by constitutional and statutory norms, including fair hearing and notice under Article 14 and principles of natural justice.
The Court accepted the DDA’s representation that no action can be taken in the absence of committee recommendations, thereby rendering the petition premature. However, the Court still imposed the mandatory safeguard of prior notice, reinforcing procedural legitimacy.
PRECEDENT ANALYSIS
The Court referenced the requirement of mandatory prior notice before taking action, relying on principles laid down by the Supreme Court relating to demolition, property rights, and natural justice.
Referenced Cases (explained briefly):
- Supreme Court Precedents on Demolition and Religious Places
These judgments mandate that no authority can demolish or interfere with a religious structure without issuing a proper notice and giving adequate opportunity to respond. The Delhi High Court relied on this principle to ensure procedural fairness. - Principles on Natural Justice
The Supreme Court has consistently held that a notice and opportunity to be heard are indispensable, even when administrative decisions are based on committee recommendations.
COURT’S REASONING
The Court reasoned that because the Religious Committee has not made any recommendation, the threat of immediate action does not arise. However, to prevent future prejudice, the Court clarified that:
- DDA cannot act unilaterally.
- Any action must be taken only after the Religious Committee’s recommendation.
- Even thereafter, a notice must be served and the petitioner must be given an opportunity to contest.
Thus, the Court struck a balance between administrative process and protection of rights.
CONCLUSION
The writ petition was disposed of as premature, but with clear protective directions:
- No action shall be taken until the Religious Committee makes a recommendation.
- If any recommendation is made, DDA must issue a prior notice to the petitioner.
- The petitioner is free to challenge any adverse order in accordance with law.
IMPLICATIONS
- Strengthens protection of religious structures from arbitrary administrative action.
- Ensures mandatory notice before any demolition or interference.
- Clarifies that committee recommendations are not self-executing and must be followed by due process.
- Reinforces procedural fairness as an essential part of urban regulatory actions.
FAQs
1. Can the DDA act against a religious structure without the Religious Committee’s recommendation?
No. The Court has clarified that no action can be taken unless the Religious Committee issues a recommendation.
2. Is notice mandatory before taking action against religious premises?
Yes. The Court held that a mandatory notice must be issued before initiating any step, even if there is a committee recommendation.
3. Can the petitioner challenge the future order of the DDA or Religious Committee?
Absolutely. The Court expressly preserved the petitioner’s right to challenge any future adverse action.