The Allahabad High Court in the case Sudhir Singh And 6 Others v. Union Of Bharat Thru Its Cabinet Secy. South Block New Delhi And 3 Others observed and has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea seeking the appointment of a committee or commission headed by a judge of the high court or supreme court (present/retired) to study the nature of the structure found in the Gyanvapi campus.
In the petition filled, seeking a direction to the panel to ascertain whether a Shiva linga and as claimed by the Hindus had been found inside the mosque or if it is a fountain as being claimed by a few of the Muslims.
The bench comprising of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed while dismissing the plea that the petition had been filled merely in order to gain some publicity and moreover, such a petition is required to be nipped in the bud by dismissing the same at the admission stage itself.
Advocate Ashok Pande had filled a writ petition on behalf of five residents of Varanasi namely Sarve Sri Sudhir Singh, Baba Balak Das, Shivendra Pratap Singh, Markande Tiwari, and Rajan Rai and two Advocates, namely Sri Ravi Mishra and Sri Atul Kumar practicing in the high court at Lucknow.
Court Observations:
The court noted that in civil court at Varanasi, several suits are pending regarding the structures existing in Gyanvapi Parisar, Varanasi and therefore, the instant Writ Petition concerning the same subject matter, the High Court is not liable to entertain it.
It was observed that the observations was made by the court in view of the submission made by the Chief Standing Counsel informing the High Court that at least 5 regular suits in connection with the Gyanvapi Mosque dispute claiming different reliefs have been filed in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Varanasi.
It was noticed by the court that allegedly a Shivlinga had been found during the local inspection of the site by the Commissioner appointed by the Court. Therefore, when this claim was being disputed by the other side, then, the Supreme Court had directed that the aforesaid Civil Suit be transferred to the Court of the District Judge, Varanasi, for all interlocutory and ancillary proceedings and for trial in the suit.
The Court observed while dismissing the plea and the court while keeping into consideration the aforesaid facts, the court is of the considered opinion that it is not proper on the part of the petitioners to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court by filing a Public Interest Litigation seeking a relief regarding the subject matter as which is already the subject matter as also of the aforesaid Special Leave Petition of the pending suits. For the aforesaid reason, the court decline to entertain the Writ Petition.
It was also held by the court that the Court sitting at Lucknow has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition filed at Lucknow regarding the subject matter situated at Varanasi since the court noted that it does not fall under the Oudh region.
The Court stressed that the Writ Petition had not been filed on the ground of violation of any Fundamental right or any statutory right of the public at large and of which the court may warrant the issuance of a Writ Petition.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the writ petition.
