IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition P.I.L. No. 129 of 2009 Bhagwan Jagannath Mandir Seva Samiti. .……… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others. .………. Respondents Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.M. Raturi, Standing Counsel for the respondents. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. KHEHAR, C. J. (Oral) The petitioner, i.e. Bhagwan Jagannath Mandir Seva Samiti (herein after referred to as the “Samiti”), is primarily engaged in construction of temples and “dharamshalas” in Yamunotri, Himalayas. The other objects of the petitioner-Samiti include the propagation of religion, moral values and like activities through lectures etc. Besides the aforesaid, the Samiti is allegedly engaged in establishing schools for providing free education to poor girls and boys, and also for sponsoring brilliant students for higher education. The Samiti also claims to provide free food to poor and unattended people in the society. Despite the aforesaid, the construction of new Jagannath Temples and renovation of old temples and nomination of qualified worshipers in these temples, remains the primary function of the petitioner-Samiti. 2. In the execution of their objectives depicted in the foregoing paragraph, it is the case of the petitioner-Samiti, that Bhagwan Jagannath, in idol form of Lord Shiva, is situated at village Kuthnor (Yamunotri) in district Uttarkashi. It is also pointed out that the abode of Lord Shiva in phallic image, i.e. in the “linga” form is located in Yamunotri Himalayas. It is also the claim of the petitioner-Samiti, that people of 12 villages of Jankichatti have been worshiping the aforestated Bhagwan Jagannath. In the year 1960, the mukhiyas of the 12 villages of Tehsil Barkot of district Uttarkashi resolved to construct a temple and “dharamshala” at Yamunotri, Himalayas. The aforesaid temple was conceived of at the site of the “linga” form of Bhagwan Jagannath at Yamunotri, Himalayas. In their 2 aforestated resolution, details whereof have been depicted in paragraphs 6 & 7 of the writ petition, they claimed land on lease from the State Government, for the purpose referred to herein above. 3. In the determination of the State Government, various issues came to be examined, firstly, whether or not, the assertion at the hands of the petitioner of the existence of Bhagwan Jagannath “linga” at Yamunotri, Himalayas, is actually in existence. It was also a matter of consideration, whether the construction of a temple and or “dharamshala” at the site would be environmentally acceptable. And last but not the least, whether or not, religious communities of the area would accept the construction of a temple at the site selected by the petitioner-Samiti. It also deserves to be mentioned, that the cause of the petitioner-Samiti was espoused from time to time by a minister of the Government. Having failed at all levels, the petitioner-Samiti has approached this Court through a public interest litigation so as to espouse the cause of the residents of the villages referred to above. 4. In analysing all the aforesaid aspects of the matter, the State Government arrived at conclusions on all the issues, which were detrimental to the claim raised by the petitioner-Samiti. The findings recorded by the State Government, on the issues referred to herein above, emerge from paragraphs 8 to 10 of the joint counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 2 to 4. Paragraphs 8 to 10 (aforementioned) are being extracted hereunder: “8. That the Divisional Forest Officer vide office letter no. 3178/11-1 dated 24.5.2007 wrote to the petitioner to produce the evidence as to if the said alleged temple has found reference in any religious book and also sought other historical evidence to this effect. The petitioner committee submitted page no. 514 of chapter 130 of Kedarkhand/Skandpuran but it does not substantiate the existence of the said temple at that place. There is no reference about the existence of such temple in those pages. 9. That the Divisional Forest Officer, Upper Yamuna Forest Division, Barkot made spot inspection on 3.6.07 and he found that no such proposal can be granted from environmental point and accordingly vide office letter no. 3437/1-1 dated 22.6.2007 the petitioner was informed. 10. That it is submitted that Conservator of Forest, Yamuna Circle, Uttarakhand, Dehradun also locally inspected the area on 18.10.2007 and found that the proposed area is situated amidst 3 dense/rich forest. However, it may be submitted that (Aerial) Ropeway is proposed to be constructed by the Tourism Department in the nearby area from Village Kharsali to Yamunotri Dham and the members of the Yamunotri Mandir Dham Samiti have also opposed the move for transferring the land to the petitioner and information to the petitioner to this effect has been sent vide letter no. 1638/11-1 dated 2.1.2008, therefore, the proposal for transfer of the reserve forest land to the alleged temple has been turned down by the forest authorities.” 5. From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government, it emerges, that there is no Bhagwan Jagannath in idol / phallic form of Lord Shiva situated in village Kuthnor (Yamunotri) in district Uttarkashi. The reference made by the petitioner to some ancient treatises was also examined by the State Government, but was considered to be unfounded. The State Government expressly arrived at the conclusion, that the acceptance of the proposal of the petitioner-Samiti would not be environmentally feasible / appropriate. The State Government also, having examined religious communities of the locality, arrived at the conclusion, that religious communities of the locality were aversed to the construction of the temple at the spot in question. 6. In the facts and circumstances noticed herein above, it is apparent, that the entire edifice, on the basis whereof the petitioner has approached this Court for relief, is fallacious. That being so, no relief can be granted to the petitioner, more so in a “public interest litigation”, which is not supported by religious communities of the locality, and in that sense, the cause espoused by the petitioner cannot be accepted as a cause in “public interest”. 7. For the reasons recorded herein above, we find no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C. J.) 17.02.2010 17.02.2010 G