ORDER : 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “(A) Be pleased to admit and allow this petition; (B) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, direction or order the respondent No.1 for allowing the petitioner to do the event on 29/03/2021 at Pandit Dindayal Upadhyay Indoor Stadium, Athwalines, Surat; (C) To pass such other and further order/s as may be deemed fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice; 2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Bharatkumar K. Vizoda for the petitioner. 3. By way of this petition, the petitioner who is into the business of making diamond and jewellery in Surat and also into event management has prayed for allowing the petitioner to arrange an event of Tasawwur Qawwali Group and Ecstatic Dance for the audience and of life celebration with established musicians. For organising the aforesaid event, the petitioner prayed for permission to hold the aforesaid event vide email dated 23.02.2021. In respect to the aforesaid email dated 23.02.2021, the respondent – Surat Municipal Corporation replied the petitioner vide email dated 24.02.2021 and in the reply, it was clearly stated that : “PDU Indoor Stadium built & managed by Surat Municipal Corporation is available for Public shows on rental basis subject to fulfillment of conditions framed by this organisation as well as Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India in view to deal with Covid-19 pandemic.” 4. Thereafter, the petitioner visited the office of the respondent No.1 collected the details of booking, estimated cost etc. and applied for on-line booking and prepared two separate demand drafts of the amount of Rs.42,480 and Rs.5,45,000/-, though in the petition it was not stated. Learned advocate Mr. Vizoda for the petitioner at the time of argument submitted that though the aforesaid two demand drafts were prepared by the petitioner, the same were never deposited with respondent No.1 – Surat Municipal Corporation and therefore no amount was ever paid to the Surat Municipal Corporation. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Vizoda for the petitioner at the time of argument submitted that though the aforesaid two demand drafts were prepared by the petitioner, the same were never deposited with respondent No.1 – Surat Municipal Corporation and therefore no amount was ever paid to the Surat Municipal Corporation. 5. The respondent No.1 – Surat Municipal Corporation on 16.03.2020, sent an email to the petitioner stating that the allotment of Indoor Stadium for Public shows has been suspended till further orders with a view to control recent rise in Covid-19 cases and the aforesaid decision was taken for safety of public in large interest and also informed the petitioner that reopening of venue for Public shows will be notified at appropriate time after reviewing the situation of Covid-19 cases. 6. In addition to the aforesaid email, even vide communication dated 16.03.2021 address to one M. P. Bharodiya, it was informed that in order to see that a large gathering may not take place to prevent the spread of Covid- 19 in view of rise in Covid-19 cases till further instructions the allotment of Indoor Stadium is stopped. 7. The petitioner on the same day i.e. 16.03.2021, sent an email to the respondent No.1 – Corporation and stated that he was given verbal permission to hold the event on 28.02.2021 and he has invested around Rs. 21 lakhs till 16.03.2021 and his budget for organizing the event is around Rs.35 lakhs and in view of his commitment to the musicians and event management team, he is not in a position to reschedule his cultural event. 8. In view of aforesaid email and inspite of his email dated 16.03.2021, since the respondent No.1 had not allowed the petitioner to hold the event, the petitioner preferred this petition on the ground that he has already invested Rs.20 lakhs for his event. He has already committed to the musicians and event management team and if he is not allowed to go on with the event, he will suffer not only financial loss but also his image and reputation will get tarnished and he is likely to face harassment by audience also and therefore by way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the relief as stated herein above. 9. Heard learned advocate Mr. Vizoda for the petitioner. Before learned advocate Mr. 9. Heard learned advocate Mr. Vizoda for the petitioner. Before learned advocate Mr. Vizoda could start arguing the matter, it was put to the learned advocate Mr. Vizoda that considering the fact that the petitioner is in the business of diamond jewellery, it is not that the petitioner is an absolutely poor person finding it difficult to earn his livelihood for his day to day life and therefore, considering the fact that pandemic of Covid-19 is effecting one and all and there is a rapid surge in the cases of Covid-19, inspite of that, would the petitioner still prefer to think about his profitability ahead of Public health by insisting upon organising the event. 10. Learned advocate Mr. Chauhan sought permission from this Court to take instruction from his client i.e. petitioner was instructed that what made the petitioner for insisting to hold the event as prayed for in the petition, is that the reputation of the petitioner is at stake if the petitioner is not permitted to hold the event, the petitioner will incur financial loss and therefore the petitioner is still insisting for the permission as prayed for thereafter learned advocate Mr. Vizoda started making submissions. 11. Learned AGP Ms. Vyas submitted that the petitioner is praying for permission to hold the event only on the strength of email, considering the fact that the demand drafts towards booking were never given to the respondent No.2. She further draws the attention of this Court to various restricting measures taken by the State Government to ensure that pandemic of Covid-19 do not spread any more and prayed for dismissal of this petition with costs. 12. Learned advocate Mr. Vizoda made submission mainly on the ground of financial loss that the petitioner will suffer on account of denial of permission to hold the event on 29.03.2021. He submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to take all necessary precautions like compulsory wearing of mask, social distancing and proving sanitizer to the people who will participate in the event. When it was put to Mr. He submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to take all necessary precautions like compulsory wearing of mask, social distancing and proving sanitizer to the people who will participate in the event. When it was put to Mr. Chauhan that when all the Cinema Halls and other Halls meant for cultural activities are closed down, even the schools and colleges are also not functioning which are imparting education which is more important than entertainment and inspite of that knowing fully well that in event wherein public gathering is there are not permitted by the authorities, what is that special ground for the petitioner to insist for going on with the event as scheduled on 29.03.2021 except for the ground of financial loss no other ground was canvassed by the learned advocate Mr. Vizoda. Since no other argument was made by Mr. Vizoda to substantiate his claim to direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to go on with the event as scheduled on 29.03.2021 in Pandit Dindayal Upadhyay Indoor Stadium at Surat, this Court has considered the submissions of Mr. Vizoda only on the line of the aforesaid ground of financial loss and loss of image/reputation in the society. 13. Today, when the entire country is passing through a very tough time and authorities are taking all possible steps to ensure that the spread of Covid-19 can be restricted as much as possible and therefore is compelled to take and impose certain restrictive measures. Not permitting the cultural programmes or large public gathering are one of those preventive steps. People at large are expected to cooperate with the aforesaid preventive measures by ignoring personal hardship or profitability as much as possible. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner is not a common man nor he has prayed for permission to organize some unavoidable event. Petitioner's sole intention is to hold the event and thereby to make profit. As stated in the petition, the petitioner has already invested Rs. 21 lakhs. As per email, the petitioner's budget is Rs. 35 lakhs and the only purpose of petitioner as can be inferred from the argument of learned advocate Mr. Vizoda is to make money out of event even at the cost of public health. Such approach on the part of companies like petitioner is not required to be encouraged. 21 lakhs. As per email, the petitioner's budget is Rs. 35 lakhs and the only purpose of petitioner as can be inferred from the argument of learned advocate Mr. Vizoda is to make money out of event even at the cost of public health. Such approach on the part of companies like petitioner is not required to be encouraged. For petitioner, event management is only one of the business and he is mainly in the business of Diamond Jewellery. So it is not the case that the petitioner is a comman man or a company which is struggling for its existence or survival. Had that been the case, the things would have been considered in little different perception. Though, it was put to the petitioner that when the schools are also running with so many restrictions, why such large public gathering for the purpose of entertainment is required. Learned advocate for the petitioner had no answer to that and the only reply or argument that was canvassed by this Court was in respect of monetary aspect. Such approach is not required to be encouraged by entertaining such petitions. It is also pertinent to note that all these arguments were made by the learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner who has not even deposited the demand draft of Rs. 42,480/- and Rs. 5,45,000/- which are prepared by the petitioner but never deposited with the respondent - Surat Municipal Corporation. So it is not the case of the petitioner that some amount is deposited by the petitioner to the respondent No.1 and he is not likely to get any refund of the aforesaid amount except for making a statement that the petitioner has invested Rs. 21 lakhs for the event, nothing is produced on record to substantiate the aforesaid claim and therefore, I do not find any reason to entertain the petition at the cost of public health. Public health is far important than personal monetary interest of the petitioner and therefore, the permission is rightly denied by the respondent No.1 vide email dated 16.03.2021 and therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. However, considering the petitioner's approach and views towards public health at the cost of individual gain, the petition is dismissed by imposing the cost of Rs. 35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand Only) on the petitioner.