'Mere Apprehension': Gujarat High Court Refuses To Entertain Mosque's Anticipatory Plea Against Possible Action By Authorities

The Gujarat High Court on Tuesday (December 16) refused to entertain a plea filed by a mosque in Ahmedabad claiming apprehension of action against it by the authorities, observing that no cause of action had arisen as plea was filed on an apprehension and the court cannot entertain an anticipatory petition. 

Justice Mauna M Bhatt was hearing a petition seeking a direction that respondents maybe directed to initiate any proposed action after following due process of law.

The counsel for the petitioner said that the it is apprehension of the petitioner that their property will be subjected to some action under provisions of Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act leading them to file this petition.

The court in its order dictated:

"In the opinion of this court without their being any cause of action, this petition is filed merely on apprehension, that action would be taken against the premises of petitioner without following due process of law. Such kind of anticipatory petition is not required to be entertained. And therefore this court deems it appropriate not to entertain this petition. Moreover as per the settled legal position the respondent being the statutory authority is duty bound to initiate action in accordance with law. In this view of the matter, this petition is disposed of on ground of no cause of action having arisen".

During the hearing the counsel for the petitioner argued, "property is a waqf property and the petitioner's apprehension was that without following any procedure, any notice, we have been orally told that this property will be demolished".

The court orally said that it could not see any cause of action.

The counsel thereafter referred to averments and said, "We do not know what will happen. Surrounding area is a lake. The corporation is developing the lake. In that development we are told that we are considered to be demolished. We are on the periphery". 

He said that the authorities have to follow procedure and issue notice to the petitioner. 

The court thereafter orally said, "You just want procedure to be followed. Why apprehend they wont follow? They have to follow. They have to give you the notice...Following of procedure is not an issue. But if it is a water body and they are developing the water body...Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated that no unauthorized construction will be permitted on water body and if it is required to be developed then even solitary residences of people are to be taken. But procedure they have to follow". 

The counsel said that today it was before the court that the authorities may issue notice, adding that they had filed a representation which was not responded to. Meanwhile the authorities submitted that notice is given and without notice they would not take action. 

The plea was disposed of. 

Case title: SHAHI MASJID AND SARKHEJ MANSURI JAMAT KABRASTAN TRUST v/s STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

R/SCA/17065/2025