Wednesday, July 18, 2018

google plus
  • Sensex surges 227.91 pts to hit all-time high of 36,747.87; Nifty climbs 62.05 pts to 11,070.10 in opening trade

Posted at: Sep 14, 2017, 12:13 AM; last updated: Sep 14, 2017, 12:13 AM (IST)

SC stays takeover of Kullu temple

Satya Prakash

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, September 13

Two weeks after the HP High Court paved the way for the takeover of Raghunath Temple at Kullu by the HP Government, the Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed the process.

Acting on a petition filed by Kullu MLA Maheshwar Singh, a bench of Justice RK Agrawal and Justice DY Chandrachud issued notice to the state government asking it to respond to the issues raised by the petitioner.

A sitting MLA and scion of the erstwhile Kullu royal family, Maheshwar Singh is the caretaker of the temple. In his special leave petition, he has challenged the Himachal High Court’s August 31 order rejecting his petition challenging the state government July 26, 2016 notification taking over the temple administration.

The state government had exercised its powers under Section 29 of the HP Hindu Public Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1984 to take control and management of Raghunath Temple.

Maheshwar had contended before the high court that the shrine was a private property and that the rules of natural justice had not been followed in the takeover. Pointing out that the royal family had been traditionally taking care of the historic temple; he had termed the takeover as illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of the Constitution.

“This petition involves serious disputed questions of fact and even otherwise the rival claims of the parties are such, which can only be investigated and determined on the basis of evidence, which may be led by the parties in a properly instituted civil suit rather than by a court exercising prerogative of issuing writs,” the High Court had said refusing to entertain Maheshwar plea against the state takeover of the temple.

Initially the High Court had stayed the notification, but later it rejected his petition terming it “not maintainable” under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Maheshwar has now contended before the Supreme Court that the High Court did not adjudicate his petition on merits and erroneously held that he should have filed a civil suit against government notification.


All readers are invited to post comments responsibly. Any messages with foul language or inciting hatred will be deleted. Comments with all capital letters will also be deleted. Readers are encouraged to flag the comments they feel are inappropriate.
The views expressed in the Comments section are of the individuals writing the post. The Tribune does not endorse or support the views in these posts in any manner.
Share On