Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  


This Page To:

BALBIR SINGH V/S STATE OF BIHAR, decided on Friday, July 19, 2002.
[ In the High Court of Patna, C.W.J.C. 8053 Of 2002. ] 19/07/2002
Advocate(s) :
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page

Judgments that may be related:-

  The State of Maharashtra Versus Bhagirath Mahadeo Bhosale & Others,   04/09/2017.  

  Sham Lal Versus State of Haryana,   01/09/2017.  

  The State of Maharashtra & Another Versus Vishnu Ziparu Aagavane & Others,   04/08/2017.  

  The State of Maharashtra Versus Gautam Fulchand Shejawal & Others,   25/07/2017.  

  The State of Maharashtra Versus Ankush Rangnath Kolekar & Others,   21/07/2017.  

  The State of Maharashtra Versus Govardhan Vithal Govande & Others,   20/07/2017.  

  The State of Maharashtra, Through Public Prosecutor Versus Bhatu Narayan Patil & Others,   19/07/2017.  

  The State of Maharashtra Versus Vyankati & Others,   19/07/2017.  

  The State of Maharashtra Versus Dashrath & Others,   07/07/2017.  

  The State of Maharashtra Through P.I. Hingoli (Rural) Versus Parshu & Others,   04/07/2017.  

  The State of Maharashtra Versus Subhash,   03/07/2017.  

  The State of Maharashtra Versus Laxman & Others,   23/06/2017.  

  The State of Maharashtra Versus Rajesh Pitambar Sonwane & Others,   22/06/2017.  

  The State of Maharashtra Versus Rajesh Pitambar Sonwane & Others,   22/06/2017.  

  S. Krishnaveni Versus The Director, Fire Service and Rescue Services, No.17, Rukmani Lakshmipathi & Others,   22/06/2017.  

  S. Krishnaveni Versus The Director, Fire Service and Rescue Services, No.17, Rukmani Lakshmipathi & Others,   22/06/2017.  

  Vasanta Sampat Dupare Versus State of Maharashtra,   03/05/2017.  

  Baldev Singh & Others Versus State of H.P.,   29/04/2017.  

  Kannan Krishnan Versus M/s Mantri Developers Private Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 & Another,   27/04/2017.  

  Mubeen Sharieff Versus Bangalore Development Authority represented by its Commissioner,   03/04/2017.  

  Bhupinder Batra & Another Versus Union of India Through Secretary, Department of Telecommunications, New Delhi & Others,   10/03/2017.  

  Shrinath Gangadhar Giram Versus The State of Maharashtra through Police Inspector & Another,   23/02/2017.  

  Ami Lal & Others Versus State of Delhi,   22/11/2016.  

  Bikash Yadav & Others Versus The State of Bihar & Others,   18/11/2016.  

  State of Punjab & Others Versus Jagjit Singh & Others,   26/10/2016.  

  Harbeer Singh & Another Versus Sheeshpal & Others,   20/10/2016.  

  Binod Thakur @ Tuntun Thakur Versus The State of Bihar through S.P. East Champaran,   30/09/2016.  

  Telangana State Road Transport Corporation Rep. by its Managing Director & Others Versus P. Ramesh,   08/09/2016.  

  Mahesh Tiwari Versus State of U.P. and Ors.,   24/08/2016.  

  Dev Dutt & Others Versus State of Uttar Pradesh,   10/08/2016.  

  Ravinder P. Kumar Versus State & Others,   22/07/2016.  

  Chandrakala Kumari Versus The State of Bihar & Others,   05/07/2016.  

  In Re: M/s. K Sera Sera Digital Cinema Pvt. Ltd. Versus Digital Cinema Initiatives & Others,   08/06/2016.  

  State of Himachal Pradesh Versus Rattan Singh,   20/05/2016.  

  Putul Rabidas Versus Coalfields Limited & Others,   18/05/2016.  

  Talwandi Sabo Power Limited & Another Versus SEPCO Electric Power Construction Corporation & Another,   17/05/2016.  

  Devinder Singh & Others Versus State of Punjab through CBI,   25/04/2016.  

  M/s. CASIO India Co. Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Haryana,   29/03/2016.  

  Sanjay Dheer Versus M/s. Mantri Developers Private Limited & Another,   28/03/2016.  

  Union Territory Lakshadweep Administration Versus Pattakkal Sayed Ahammed Koya Thangal & Others,   22/03/2016.  

  Bedarul Islam Versus State of West Bengal,   17/03/2016.  

  Kusum Lata Versus State & Others,   03/03/2016.  

  Balbir Singh Versus State,   18/12/2015.  

  Naik Satya Narain & Another Versus State & Others,   04/12/2015.  

  Chand Singh & Others Versus The Narcotics Control Bureau,   30/11/2015.  

  M.C.D Versus Surender Kumar & Another,   30/11/2015.  

  Laxman Vithoba Jadhav & Others Versus State of Maharashtra & Others ,   01/10/2015.  

  Yunusbhai Usmanbhai Shaikh Versus State of Gujarat,   23/09/2015.  

  Santosh @ Neta Khatik Versus State of U.P.,   23/09/2015.  

  Mojamil Baitha Versus The State of Bihar,   12/08/2015.  

#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw

  "2003 AIR (Pat) 31"  ==   "2002 (3) PatLJR 755"  

    Constitution Of India Article 228 Article 25 -     (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 devotees 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.