Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. The applicant submits that even with respect to this temple, a Civil Judge (JD)/ Munsif, Mathura is acting as an administrator and is managing the affairs of the Temple since the year 2016. The temple was the site of an unfortunate stampede in the year 2022, resulting in the death and injuries of devotees. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 1509 of 2022 came to be filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad seeking directions to ensure public order in and around the Temple of Shri Bankey Behari. The Hon’ble High Court required the State Government to submit a plan/ scheme for the development of the entire area.

11.3 It is argued that the Uttar Pradesh Braj Planning and Development Board Act, 2015 came to be enacted for the development, preservation and maintaining the Braj Heritage in the District of Mathura. Under the Act, a Parishad has been constituted which has the necessary expertise to administer the temples in the region, and accordingly its services can be utilized for appointing Administrators/Receivers for these temples. 11.4 The primary thrust of the Respondent No. 4’s argument rests upon the dire situation of the Banke Bihari Temple in Mathura, and the lack of proper administration and amenities therein. The Temple is spread on a limited area of only 1200 sq.ft. The number of devotees/visitors visiting per day is about 50,000, of which the figure swells to about 1.5 Lakhs to 2.0 Lakhs per day during the weekends and to a figure of almost 5 Lakhs plus during the festival days. It is submitted that considering the existing area, there is almost unmanageable number of devotees who throng the Temple every day. The exigency of the situation demands urgent and immediate remedial measures. 11.5 It has been apprised to the Court that at present, a Civil Judge (JD), Munsif, Mathura is acting as an administrator of the Temple since 2016. This Temple was the site of an unfortunate stampede in the year 2022 resulting into death and injuries to large number of devotees.

11.7 It is further submitted that in order to ensure that the land purchased remains in the name and ownership of the temple/ deity, the temple fund can be utilised to purchase the land. The State has proposed to incur more than Rs. 500 Crores to develop and construct the corridor. In relation to the same, while the High Court has accepted the Scheme it has refused to permit the State to utilize the temple funds.

11.8 The learned senior counsel relies on the judgement in the case of Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath Temple, Varanasi and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (1997) 4 SCC 606, wherein this Court upheld the validity of the Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983 and reaffirmed the delicate balance between religious freedom and state regulation. 11.9 That under Article 142 of the Constitution, this Court has the power to do complete justice and give directions even in respect of matters which was not directly under consideration or directly impugned before this Court. (Reliance placed on Rajeev Suri v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors. (2022) 11 SCC 1).

4. The writ (PIL) has been opposed by Goswamis who are stated to perform the Sewa in the Temple by raising all sorts of objections i.e. non- joinder/mis-joinder of parties, material concealment and lack of credentials and bona fides of the petitioner, the writ (PIL) being collusive and filed for personal interest, PIL under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, being Writ Petition (Civil) No. 369 of 2004 filed for similar relief having been dismissed reliefs claimed barred under Order 23 Rule 3-A CPC and violative of the Article 300-A of the Constitution of India besides being violative of the provisions of the Religious Endowment Act, 1863 and the Places of Worship Act, 1981, the Temple being a private Temple, no interference can be claimed in respect of its management and upkeep.