w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Balbir Singh v/s State of Bihar

    C.W.J.C. 8053 Of 2002

    Decided On, 19 July 2002

    At, High Court of Bihar


    For the Appearing Parties: --------

Judgment Text

(1.) Four petitioners Mr. Balbir Singh, a former principal of A. N. College, Patna, claiming himself to be the President of Pashupatinath Sarva Jan Kalyan Ashram resident of Patna, Sonadhari resident of Bhojpur, Upendra Kumar Singh resident of Patna arid Professor Ganesh Prasad Ojha resident of Patna, have filed the present petition for seeking a writ in the High Court's prerogative writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, that the respondents so arrayed be directed not to restrain the devotee

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

of Hindu religion from worship in the Hindu temple of Brahm Asthan located at the southern boundary wall of Sanjay Gandhi Botanical Garden, adjacent to the Patna Airport.(2.) The contention is that the authorities have locked the gate of the Brahm Asthan without any rhyme or reason and best known to them.(3.) The cause for locking the gate has not been stated in the petition but gradually it came out in the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners.(4.) It is contended that it is the fundamental right of the devotees to worship as guaranteed under the Constitution of India. It is also submitted that the temple is of Hindu religion known as Brahm Asthan. The first petitioner calls himself the President of Pashupatinath Sarva Jan Kalyan Ashram; that the temple named as Brahm Asthan is being worshipped under the supervision and under the auspicious of Pashupatinath Sarvjan Kalyan Ashram; that this Brahm Asthan is in the existence for the last 250 years; that people nearby come and offer their prayers; that recently even on the occasion of Hon'ble Chief Minister's daughter's marriage the bride-groom was sent to this temple to seek blessings; that all of a sudden on 6 July, 2002 some people could not have access to the temple; that the respondent No. 2 otherwise arrayed by name but officially Director, Sanjay Gandhi Botanical Garden, Patna, locked the gate of Botanical Garden on the side where the temple is. In the petition that some unsavoury comments have been made against respondent No. 2 that he is Sikh by religion and does not have faith in Hindu religion that is why he attempted to demolish a part of the temple and put a lock on the gate denying access to the temple. The last comment on this affidavit is rather unfortunate.(5.) The issue plainly is of locking the gate of the estate of the botanical park towards the side where the temple is claimed to be. The real cause, not given in the writ petition was acknowledged by counsel for the petitioner during submissions. There is a nexus between the event and the locking of the gate in close proximity of 6 July, 2002, a date given in the petition. As counsel accepted gradually that a person who claimed himself to be the priest of the claimed temple was found dead. The Court had this information checked at the suggestion of State counsel from the library of the High Court. Three local papers (Hindustan Times, Hindustan, and Aaj) all dated 29 June. 2002 report an incident of a death within the premises of this claimed temple. Clearly, then, there is a link between action which has been taken by the Director, Sanjay Gandhi Botanical Garden and the locking of the gate of the Botanical Garden. The Court is not concerned whether the incident partakes the nature of a murder or otherwise as this would be matter under investigation of the police.(6.) What is relevant is that this fact should have been mentioned in the petition and it is unfortunate that it was kept away in the petition which seeks a writ from the High Court under Article of the Constitution of India; the High Court's writ jurisdiction. There is a heavy obligation on the petitioners to come with correct facts and state the truth and nothing but the truth and keep nothing away from the Court. If the Court had made a mistake on issuing a writ on this petition then many consequences and presumptions would have followed and giving a half way sanctity to the people who claim positions on professed organisations and a claimed temple.(7.) The Court had repeatedly inquired whether this claimed temple would a building of antiquity so as to be recognised by law and on this there apparently was no answer. Any Asthan being used as temple made on a public place, public road, public park or like places cannot be claimed as right. The Court is making no comment on this particular claimed temple which may be inside the Botanical Garden. Further, nothing stated in the writ petition should be read as evidence in any other proceeding should it be filed.(8.) If it is the contention of the petitioner that the locking of the gate is illegal, the question is whose gate has been locked of the Botanical Garden or the claimed temple. If there is a matter under investigation then it is to be seen whether there is any law and order situation or not.(9.) On the facts as have emerged now, not given in the writ petition, no one can say the State respondents do not face a law and order situation. It would not be appropriate to issue a writ on this petition. It is unfortunate that full facts were not stated, but concealed.(10.) Dismissed. Petition dismissed.

Already A Member?