The Uttarakhand High Court has closed a public interest litigation alleging illegal construction and misuse of an ancient temple property at Shri Ram Mandir, Haldwani, after taking on record the City Magistrate’s inquiry report.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Subhash Upadhyay was hearing a PIL seeking directions to the authorities to inquire into alleged illegal constructions in the temple premises, restrain further unauthorized construction, and appoint a Receiver for the temple’s Management Committee. The petitioner alleged that the temple priest, for the purposes of his personal gain, had been using the temple properties in an arbitrary and illegal manner, displayed photographs of his family members within the temple premises, and on main festival days, placed undergarments belonging to both men and women at the entrance, thus disregarding the convenience of the attendees. The petitioner also alleged that a gate had been illegally installed on a public road.
When the matter was heard earlier, the High Court had directed the State to apprise it of the action taken on the petitioner’s complaint lodged through the “Encroachment Grievance App” and to place the relevant report on record. Pursuant to the Court’s direction, the State produced a report submitted by the City Magistrate, Haldwani, based on an inspection conducted by the Tehsildar on November 11, 2024.
According to the report, although a gate had been constructed, the temple remained open for public use. The report further stated that the allegations relating to mismanagement or misuse of temple property pertained to the internal affairs of the temple’s Management Committee and did not warrant interference by the official respondents. It also recorded that the Temple Committee had already issued a notice to the concerned priest on July 8, 2024, and that proceedings under Section 27(1) of the Uttarakhand Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 had been initiated regarding inconsistent use of certain property.
Taking note of the above submissions, the Court observed that “having regard to the report, we are not inclined to proceed any further in the present case. It is left open to the petitioner to avail any other appropriate remedy, if he feels aggrieved by the report of the City Magistrate.” The PIL was accordingly closed.
When courts trust due process, faith finds its own path to justice.
