1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 5096/2009. Smt. Meera Manohar Vyaghra and others -: versus :- State of Maharashtra and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : MARCH 26, 2010. Heard Shri A.M. Gedam, learned counsel for petitioners, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Shri P.S. Tidke, learned counsel for respondent no.4. The petitioners have taken objection to the order of respondent no.1 under Section 138, whereby FL-III licence has been granted to respondent no.4. Learned counsel for petitioners has invited attention of the Court to a registration certificate issued for 'Sheetla Mata Seva Samiti, Nagpur' having registration No. E-2081 Nagpur. He contends that Sheetla Mata Seva Samiti is old temple managed by the said Trust and it is situated within the prohibited area of 75 meters from the establishment of respondent no.4. He also points out that the police investigation report in the matter was against respondent no.4. Shri Tidke, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4 states that Trust of which registration 2 certificate is produced is not connected with the temple in dispute and that temple is not registered with the Charity Commissioner Authorities. He further states that the report of police authorities [by concerned inspector] is in favour of respondent no.4 and the report of Deputy Superintendent of Police thereafter is also in favour of respondent no.4. Police Commissioner has only taken adverse view, but that is because of some complaints which are not substantiated. He has also invited attention to the circular as considered by the Commissioner of State Excise in his order dated 10.08.2009 to point out the relevance of such police investigation. He further states that in any case distance between the establishment of petitioner and said temple is already measured and it is found that, that temple is at a distance of 76 meters from the said establishment. He further points out that the verification from the office of the Charity Commissioner has revealed that affairs of the temple in question are not regulated by the Trust of whose registration details are furnished. He states that no case is made out warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. Learned A.G.P. appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 3 is supporting the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister. The registration certificate dated 02.11.2007 is issued in the name of Shri Bhawanisingh Mahadeo Siria and that certificate does not mention any Temple as such. Copy of the constitution / bye laws shown to court by Shri Tidke, learned counsel, however shows the address of one Shri Bhawanisingh Mahadeo Siria, Plot No. 29, Joshi Plots, Subhash Nagar, Nagpur. The object of the trust as disclosed is to encourage worship of Sheetla Mata. However, the 3 address of the trust given on it or then entire document no where shows any Sheetla Mata temple as such. The learned counsel for petitioners has invited attention to the consideration of issue by various authorities to show that those authorities have found that Sheetla Mata Temple to be ancient temple. Thus the existence of temple in question is not in dispute. The authorities have found that, that temple is not registered with the Public Trust Authorities. The fact that Trust is registered is not in dispute. The only question is therefore, whether the trust can be connected with the temple in dispute. Petitioners have also filed along with their application No. 640/2010 a measurement certificate by the Sub Divisional Engineer showing the distance between the establishment of respondent no.4 and said temple as 64 meters. The distances as mentioned in the order by the Authorities show that various establishments mentioned therein are not within the prohibited area and authorities have also found that there are 2/3 other similar establishments functioning in the area. However, the authorities have also found that temple is not managed by any registered trust. Looking to the nature of grievance and the area in which the shop is located, I am inclined to give petitioners one opportunity to demonstrate that the temple is managed by a registered public Trust. The petitioners can make appropriate application for said purpose to respondent no.3 and respondent no.3 shall thereafter give necessary opportunity to respondent no.4 and all concerned and decide the issue in accordance with the law. 4 With this liberty to petitioners, Writ Petition is disposed of with no order as to cost. JUDGE Rgd.