Bombay High Court
Lalita Sandip Shinde vs Archeological Survey Of India And Ors. on 25 July, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:31602-DB
Neeta Sawant 7- PIL-147-2012.docx-fc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 147 OF 2022
Lalita Sandip Shinde ....Petitioner
: Versus :
Archeological Survey of India and Ors. ....Respondents
Mr. Rameshwar N. Gite, for the Petitioner.
Mr. R.V. Govilkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ashok Tajane, Ms. Shaba N.
Khan i/by. Mr. Yogesh Thorat, for Respondent No.2.
Mrs. Neha S. Bhide, Government Pleader with Mr. O.A. Chandurkar,
Additional Government Pleader and Mrs. R.A. Salunkhe, AGP for Respondent
No.3-State.
CORAM : ALOK ARADHE, CJ. &
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED : 25 JULY 2025.
P.C. : (Per Sandeep V. Marne, J.)
1) The Petitioner has filed this petition in public interest
seeking abolition of practice of charging fees for quicker darshan at Trimbakeshwar Temple, Nashik. The petition also seeks appropriate action to be taken by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) against Trimbakeshwar Devasthan Trust for charging donation/fees for darshan. The petition also seeks a direction for restoration of monument and resumption thereof from the present Trust and entrustment thereof to a new Trust.
2) Petitioner claims to be a social worker who has highlighted various illegalities taking place in the management of Trimbakeshwar ______________________________________________________________________________ Page No.1 of 9 Friday, 25 July 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 08:49:36 ::: Neeta Sawant 7- PIL-147-2012.docx-fc Temple at Nashik. The monument named Trimbakeshwar temple, situated at Trimbak, Nashik, is declared as ancient monument under the provisions of Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904 (the Act). According to the Petitioner, the land on which the temple is situated is declared in the ownership of the Government of India under Section 3 of the Act. In the year 1952, a Trust was registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 under the name Trimbakeshwar Temple Trust. Petitioner pleads that dispute arose about membership of the Trust and formation of its Committee, which was taken upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which directed formation of nine members Committee to look after management of the temple. That the scheme of the Trust was modified in pursuance of the directions of the Supreme Court. That after constitution of the modified scheme, the new Trust Committee started charging VIP entry of Rs.200/- from the north gate. That several representations were made to the Archaeological Department which issued letter dated 23 June 2015 to the Trust. That the Trust did not act upon directions of the ASI. That Petitioner preferred representation to the Tourism Minister against charging of fees of Rs.200/- for darshan. That Petitioner thereafter wrote letter to the Registrar of this Court. She also made a representation to the then Prime Minister of India. That the Charity Commissioner gave directions to the Deputy Charity Commissioner to look into the grievances who filed enquiry report stating that the donation sought by the Trust was not compulsory and that boards to that effect were displayed inside the temple. The Petitioner thereafter wrote letter to ASI on 11 September 2017. Since the Trust did not discontinue charging of fees for VIP darshan, the Petitioner has filed the present petition.
3) Mr. Gite, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that Respondent No.2-Trust has no authority for charging ______________________________________________________________________________ Page No.2 of 9 Friday, 25 July 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 08:49:36 ::: Neeta Sawant 7- PIL-147-2012.docx-fc any amount for darshan in the temple as the temple property belongs to ASI. He would refute the allegations that Petitioner has any personal interest in the petition. He would highlight steps taken by the Petitioner for betterment of Respondent No2-Trust by inviting our attention to various newspaper reports. That the Trust is indulging in unjust enrichment by collecting fees from devotees. That the Trust is actually not even entitled to manage the affairs of the temple since the same is a property of ASI and a protected monument under Section 3 of the Act. That under Section 38 of the Act, only the Central Government/ASI can makes Rules and Regulations concerning access to the monument by public. That the Trust has absolutely no authority to take any decision regulating entry of devotees in the temple. That the Trust is spending crores of rupees and utilising the amount for its own gain rather than depositing the same in the treasury of the Central Government. He would accordingly pray for discontinuation of practice of charging fees for VIP darshan and for taking over the affairs of the Trust by ASI.
4) The petition is opposed by Mr. Govilkar, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for Respondent No.2-Trust, who would submit that Petitioner has personal interest in the affairs of Respondent No.2-Trust. That Petitioner was a trustee of Respondent No.2-Trust, who had participated in the decision making process when Resolution dated 16 October 2013 was adopted by the Trustee by charging voluntary fees for darshan in the temple. That Petitioner has an axe to grind against the Trustees and has misused the jurisdiction of this Court by filing PIL to espouse her own personal cause. That the petition suffers from gross delay as the Resolution for charging of fees was adopted on 16 October 2013 whereas the petition is filed in the year 2022. That the Petitioner has adequate remedies under the provisions of Maharashtra Public Trust Act to challenge Resolution of the Trustees and that her personal grievance regarding such Resolution cannot be espoused in PIL. That ______________________________________________________________________________ Page No.3 of 9 Friday, 25 July 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 08:49:36 ::: Neeta Sawant 7- PIL-147-2012.docx-fc Petitioner is a sister of Shri. Kailash Namdeo Palekar (Deshmukh) who is currently the trustee of Tungar Mandali Trust which is illegally functioning in the temple of Lord Trimbakeshwar. That Shri. Kailash Namdeo Palekar (Deshmukh) is having turn of 21 days in every three months to stand on Thali at Garbh Gruha at the first step of the temple. That Petitioner is thus seeking to create hurdles in functioning of Respondent No.2-Trust with the ulterior motive of supporting Tungar Mandali Trust. That the donations paid by the devotees are voluntary. That the accounts of the Trust have been duly audited from time to time. He would highlight the expenditure incurred by the Trust for public good by undertaking various activities. He would pray for dismissal of the petition.
5) We have also heard Mrs. Bhide, the learned Government Pleader appearing for Respondent-State. She would invite our attention to order dated 31 January 2025 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Kishor Goswami Versus. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition (C.) No. 700/2024) by which the Apex Court, while dismissing the petition questioning charging of darshan fees, has left it to the State Government to take appropriate action in the matter.
6) Rival contentions of the parties now fall for our consideration.
7) Petitioner is aggrieved by decision of Respondent No.2- trust of charging fees of Rs.200/- for VIP darshan in the Trimbakeshwar Temple. According to Respondent No.2-Trust, a Resolution for charging voluntary donation of Rs.200/- was adopted on 16 October 2013 and that there is gross delay in filing the petition. Petitioner was aware of the Resolution dated 16 October 2013 and as she was a Trustee of the second Respondent Trust and had participated in the meeting in which ______________________________________________________________________________ Page No.4 of 9 Friday, 25 July 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 08:49:36 ::: Neeta Sawant 7- PIL-147-2012.docx-fc Resolution was adopted for charging of voluntary donations. Therefore, on the ground of gross delay, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition.
8) What disturbs this Court is the fact that Petitioner is actually attempting to espouse her personal grievance with regard to management of the Trust by filing the present PIL. Petitioner has suppressed the position that she was elected as trustee of second Respondent Trust and that she had participated in the meeting in which Resolution was adopted for charging of voluntary donation. While describing herself in para-(iii) of the petition, the Petitioner has pleaded as under :-
III) Particulars of the Petitioners:-
The petitioner is the citizens of India and also residing within the limits of Tribakeshwar, and is having social working back grounds, and always struggling against the injustice and corruption as well as social work. The petitioner is doing Social work since decades as she is the member of many social organizations, taken in various educational and blood donation programme,. The petitioner has also challenged various irregularities time to time carried out in the Trimbakeshwar Temple, Nasik and has even fougth various cases relating to the same in Public Interest in this Hon'ble Court and in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Petitioner has also preferred several petitions concerning environmental issues, which includes cleanliness drive of river Godavari as river has its origin from trimbakeshwar. Hence the petitioner is a strong social workers and responsible person, having the proper status in the society i.e. among all the sections of the society irrespective of cast and religion. The Petitioner is even having interest and right to challenge the wrong act of the respondents in the interest of public, society or nation. There is no personal interest involved, likewise no personal grievances; it is purely in the interest of Public and nation and to pull the wrongdoers before the law institutions. Thereby being social workers, citizens of India and residents of Pune have right to file the Public Interest Litigation in the interest of Public as well as the Government. The petitioner has a right to raise the voice and knock the doors of Hon'ble court under the Constitution of India and has right to seek relief under various Civil and Criminal act for the proper directions from the Hon'ble High Court. Petitioner has gathered ______________________________________________________________________________ Page No.5 of 9 Friday, 25 July 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 08:49:36 ::: Neeta Sawant 7- PIL-147-2012.docx-fc the information under Right to Information Act, newspapers, documentations, judgments of this Hon'ble Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various other sources pertaining to the Trimbakeshwar Temple, which is under the ownership of the Government i.e. Union of India.
9) While giving a long description of her alleged activities, the Petitioner has conveniently suppressed the position that she functioned as Trustee of the Trust. Petitioner has also made a misleading statement in the above quoted paragraph that she is a resident of Pune when infact her address is shown in the cause-tittle as Patankar Sankul, Pachali, Trimbakeshwar, Nashik. The petition thus suffers from gross suppression about Petitioner's role as trustee of the second Respondent Trust. The petition is clearly aimed at settling the scores with the current Managing Committee of the second Respondent-
Trust. This is apparent from the following prayer made in the petition :-
e) This Honorable Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ of mandamus or any other writ in the nature of mandamus thereby be pleased to issue an order that Monument be restored and resumed from the present trust and the new trust may be entrusted with the custody of the Temple and the Monument.
10) Petitioner has thus specifically prayed for handing over the management of the Temple to another Trust. This prayer would clearly indicate personal interest of the Petitioner in settling scores with the Managing Committee of the second Respondent-Trust and the issue of charging of donation fees by the Trust is conveniently sought to be highlighted after delay of nine long years for the purpose of settling personal scores of the Petitioner. The letterhead on which the Petitioner had made various representations shows that she is the Trustee of two Trusts (Trimbakeshwar Devasthan Trust and Sant Nivruttinath Samadhi Trust). She is also a District President of Dwarkadish Jagatguru Shankararcharya Swami Swarupanandji Nirmit Hingalaj Sena, Nashik.
She was also Taluka President of Ladies Wing of Shiv Sena political ______________________________________________________________________________ Page No.6 of 9 Friday, 25 July 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 08:49:36 ::: Neeta Sawant 7- PIL-147-2012.docx-fc party. She was also a former Chairperson of Trimbakeshwar Nagar Parishad. She is also a Member of an educational institution, as well as Mahila Dakshata Samiti. She has however not disclosed of her capacities in the petition and has vaguely pleaded that she is a mere social worker.
11) Perusal of the minutes of the meeting dated 16 October 2013 would indicate that Petitioner had participated in the said meeting, in which decision was taken for charging voluntary donation of Rs.200/- for darshan in the temple. The Petitioner apparently did not challenge the said decision by adopting necessary remedies under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act. The first representation made by her was on 17 October 2016. The Petitioner apparently had disputes with the other Trustees of the Trust and started making representations against the Trust after the year 2016.
12) In the Affidavit-in-Reply filed by Respondent No.2-Trust, it is pointed out that there is a parallel Trust named Tungar Mandali Trust, Trimbakeshwar which also claims right of management of the temple. It is also pleaded that the said Tungar Mandali Trust has been given turn of 21 days in every 3 months to stand on Thali at Garbh Gruha at the first step of the temple. That Tungar Mandali Trust had filed Application No.8/2020 before the Assistant Charity Commissioner for sanction of the scheme for itself without taking on board Respondent No.2-Trust. Thus, there appears to be serious disputes between Respondent No.2-Trust and Tungar Mandali Trust. It is pointed out in the Affidavit-in-Reply filed by Respondent No.2-Trust that Shri. Kailash Namdeo Palekar (Deshmukh) is the President of Tungar Mandali Trust who also happens to be the brother of the Petitioner. Petitioner has not denied this averment. This is yet another reason why this Court believes that the petition has been filed not in public interest, but to ______________________________________________________________________________ Page No.7 of 9 Friday, 25 July 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 08:49:36 ::: Neeta Sawant 7- PIL-147-2012.docx-fc settle Petitioner's personal scores with the Trustees of the Respondent No.2-Trust and the attempt is to take over the management of the temple through another Trust. As observed above, there is a specific prayer in the petition for handing over the management of the temple to another Trust.
13) The Petitioner has taken pains in describing the entire background in which Respondent No.2-Trust was formed. She has knowledge about every small details of the Trust on account of her capacity as former Trustee of the Trust. However, while disclosing every minute details of the Trust and the litigation faced by it, the Petitioner has conveniently suppressed the fact that she herself was the Trustee of the Trust.
14) It appears that on account of disputes in Respondent No.2- Trust, the same is under the management of the Principal District Judge, Nashik. When letter was issued by ASI to the Trust on 2 February 2017, a reply was given by the Principal District Judge in her capacity as the President of the Trust denying that any VIP darshan or paid darshan is operated by the Trust. It was clarified that the scheme of donation was of voluntary nature and there is no compulsion on making any donation to the Trust. It was further pointed out in the said letter that the scheme of the Trust has been framed as per the directives of the Supreme Court and the Trust is permitted to accept donations, contributions, subscriptions, gifts etc. Reliance is placed by the Trust on Rule 6 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1958 under which it is permissible to charge entrance fees. That for an entry into the temple, no fees are charged, though it is permissible to charge such fees.
______________________________________________________________________________ Page No.8 of 9 Friday, 25 July 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 08:49:36 ::: Neeta Sawant 7- PIL-147-2012.docx-fc
15) Considering the conduct of the Petitioner in indulging in gross suppression of facts, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition. The petition is clearly filed to espouse personal interest of the Petitioner whose brother runs a parallel Trust and claims right to manage the activities of the temple. Petitioner herself is a former trustee of the Trust.
16) Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is both equitable and discretionary. The same cannot be permitted to be misused, especially in public interest, for the purpose of espousing private interest of the Petitioner. We find filing of the present petition by the Petitioner to be a gross abuse of process of law. We are therefore not inclined to entertain the grievance in respect of charging of fees for darshan at the instance of the Petitioner. The issue is left open to be decided in a genuine petition.
17) Since the Petitioner has grossly abused the jurisdiction of this Court by suppressing the material facts and by seeking to espouse the personal interest by filing the present PIL, this Court is inclined to impose exemplary costs on the Petitioner while dismissing the petition.
18) The PIL is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs.1,00,000/- to be paid by the Petitioner to the High Court Legal Services Authority within a period of 4 weeks. In the event, the Petitioner fails to pay the amount of costs within the stipulated time, the Registry of this Court to make a report to the Collector, Nashik who shall proceed to recover the amount of costs from the Petitioner as arrears of land revenue.
Digitally
signed by
NEETA [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]
NEETA SHAILESH
SHAILESH SAWANT
SAWANT Date: ______________________________________________________________________________
2025.07.28 Page No.9 of 9
20:07:55
+0530 Friday, 25 July 2025
::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 08:49:36 :::