| CASE NAME | Faiyaz Husain And Ors. vs Municipal Board And Ors |
| CITATION | AIR1939ALL280 |
| COURT | Allahabad High Court |
| Bench | Iqbal Ahmad, J. |
| Date of Decision | 15 November, 1938 |
INTRODUCTION
The case of Faiyaz Husain And Ors. v. Municipal Board And Ors. marks an important turning point in Indian law, particularly in terms of balancing religious rights and public utility obligations. The disagreement started when the plaintiffs, members of Amroha’s Shia Muslim community, alleged that the defendants’ installation of towering electric lines hampered their long-standing religious tradition of carrying tall tazias in Moharram processions.
This case raises an important legal question: how can courts combine religious freedom with the duty of public utilities acting under statutory authority? This analysis will look at the facts, judicial reasoning, and judgment in Faiyaz Husain And Ors. v. Municipal Board And Ors., specifically how it balances customary religious observances, statutory duties under the Indian Electricity Act, and the overarching principle of avoiding public inconvenience.
FACTS
The facts of *Faiyaz Husain And Ors. v. Municipal Board And Ors.* revolve around a clash between religious beliefs and public utility obligations. The plaintiffs, Amroha Shia Muslims, have a practice of carrying tall tazias during Moharram processions, with some reaching 27 feet. The controversy began when the defendants, comprising the Municipal Board and the Upper Ganges Valley Power Supply Co., erected power wires 20 feet apart, impeding the passage of these tazias.
Despite repeated protests to local officials, no action was taken, causing the plaintiffs to launch the lawsuit. They requested recognition of their right to carry tall tazias, as well as an injunction to elevate the wires. The defendants claimed that their activities followed statutory provisions of the Indian Electricity Act and that the tazias’ heights could be altered. This case raised serious concerns about combining public utility duty with traditional religious rights.
ISSUES
Whether the defendants violated the plaintiffs’ customary right to carry tall tazias during Moharram processions by installing electric wires at a height of 20 feet, and if so, whether the defendants’ statutory authority under the Indian Electricity Act justified such interference.
ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES
The plaintiffs claimed that the installation of electric cables at a height of 20 feet infringed their long-held right to carry towering tazias, which are an important feature of their religious processions during Moharram. They maintained that this privilege was based on a long-standing custom in Amroha and was guaranteed by their religious liberties. The plaintiffs emphasized that the blockage caused by the wires hampered their religious observances, which they claimed were essential to the procession. Furthermore, they stated that alternate arrangements, such as boosting the height of the wires or utilizing taller poles, were possible but were rejected by the defendants despite repeated protests and suggestions.
The defendants, including the Municipal Board and the electric firm, claimed that the lines were put in accordance with the Indian Electricity Act, which mandated a minimum height of 20 feet. They claimed that the height was appropriate and necessary for public safety and utility efficiency. The defendants further claimed that the plaintiffs’ tradition was not legally enforceable and that the tazias’ height may be adjusted to avoid interference with the wires. They claimed that their activities were authorized, justifiable, and carried out for the public good, with no intent to violate the plaintiffs’ rights.
DECISION
In Faiyaz Husain And Ors. v. Municipal Board And Ors., the Allahabad High Court found in favor of the plaintiffs, resolving the conflict between religious rights and legal obligations. The Court recognized the plaintiffs’ long-standing right to carry tall tazias during Moharram processions as part of their religious traditions. It determined that, while the defendants possessed legislative authority under the Indian Electricity Act, that authority was permissive and did not justify undue interference with the plaintiffs’ rights.
The Court ruled that the defendants failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent obstructing the tazias and might have raised the wires with taller poles without violating the plaintiffs’ rights. Cost reasons, it concluded, could not justify such intrusion. The Court issued a mandatory order instructing the defendants to alter the wires, emphasizing that legislative powers must be utilized in a way that protects private rights. This ruling establishes a key precedent for balancing public utility functions with customary rights.
ANALYSIS
The decision in Faiyaz Husain And Ors. v. Municipal Board And Ors. is noteworthy in terms of balancing religious freedoms and statutory requirements in India. The Court emphasized that statutory powers, such as those under the Indian Electricity Act, must be implemented in a manner that minimizes harm to individual rights. It rejected the notion that simply achieving statutory criteria, such as a 20-foot wire height, would release the defendants from culpability. Instead, the Court considered alternate measures, such as larger poles, to avoid disrupting the plaintiffs’ religious processions.
The decision emphasised the necessity of accepting long-standing religious traditions, even if they are not legally codified, as long as they do not interfere with public safety or other legal goals. By granting a required injunction, the Court demonstrated that cost or convenience cannot justify violating fundamental rights. This case emphasizes the judiciary’s responsibility to ensure that public utilities uphold both individual and communal rights while carrying out their tasks responsibly.
