The Supreme Court in the case Ram Swarth Singh & Ors v. Neeta Bhardwaj & Ors observed and granted two weeks time to some unauthorised occupants of Dharamshalas in the city’s Kalkaji Temple to vacate the premises.
The vacation bench comprising of Justice Surya Kant and the Justice JB Pardiwala observed and however refused to entertain the special leave petition assailing Delhi High Court’s order dated June 1 directing the pujaris and the unauthorized occupants in city’s Kalkaji Temple to vacate the premises by June 6.
It was also asked by the Top Court to file an undertaking before the administrator appointed by the Delhi High Court that they would hand over a peaceful vacant possession.
Advocate Sachin Patil, appearing for the petitioner, in the hearing submitted that on June 13, 2022., the bench headed by Justice Bopanna had halted the dispossession of Pujari’s for Temple’s redevelopment.
On the other hand, it was submitted by the cousel appearing for the temple administrator that the petitioners were illegal occupants and they were neither baridars nor the devotees.
It was observed that the Top Court has refused, while reffering to the order dated March 5 and had refused to interfere with plea challenging eviction of unauthorized occupants at the temple. The bench headed by Justice Surya Kant the presiding judge asked temple’s counsel as to whether he had brought the same to the notice of the bench headed by Justice Bopanna.
It was contended that the June 13 order had given protection only to Pujari’s. Moreover, it was submitted by the Counsel appearing for the temple that the petitioners were not pujari’s and were just occupying the Dharamshala.
The bench however dismissed the SLP but granted 2 weeks time to the unauthorized occupants to vacate the premises, while considering the contentions of the counsel.
The bench in its order stated that the bench is not inclined to entertain the Special Leave Petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Accordingly, the bench dismissed the same.
However, the bench granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the Administrator appointed by the High Court with their grievances including allotment of alternative spaces for rehabilitation.
The bench have no reason to doubt that the Administrator shall examine such claims in accordance with law and policy.
The bench further stated that if an undertaking is filled by the petitioner before the Administrator to hand-over peaceful vacant possession, it may be noted that they shall be permitted for a period of two weeks to retain possession.