SCA/638219/1997 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6382 of 1997 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= GHANUNATH ALIAS GANUNATH RAMNATH GOSAI (SADHU) - Petitioner(s) Versus NAVNITBHAI BABARBHAI PATEL & 7 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR BP DALAL for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR HS MUNSHAW for Respondent(s) : 1 - 3. MS REETA CHANDARANA, AGP for Respondent(s) : 4 - 8. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI Date : 10/12/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT Petitioner has challenged the action of demolition of a particular temple near Pavgadh Hills SCA/638219/1997 2/3 JUDGMENT which action according to the petitioner was taken by the respondents and the same was unauthorized. 2. Contending that the temple was in existence since the year 1969 and was registered before the Charity Commissioner as the property of Mahakaleswar Mahadev Temple Trust, the petitioner contends that the act of the respondents was illegal and direction should be given to reconstruct the temple. 3. Respondent No.1 has filed an affidavit stating that he has nothing to do with the demolition. The petitioner has no locus standi since the petition is filed in individual capacity. An affidavit has also been filed by one Bipin Janubhai Bhatt, Deputy Collector, in which it is stated that the temple has been removed since the same was newly created on the Pavgadh Hill on Government land. It is stated that several deries have been constructed in last 5 to 7 years which obstruct the path of the pilgrims. He also relied on certain evidence to show that the temple was newly constructed. 4. Learned advocate Mr.Dalal appearing for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the respondents had no authority to demolish the ancient temple. 5. Since large number of disputed questions of facts are involved, it is not possible to decide the SCA/638219/1997 3/3 JUDGMENT same in this writ petition. Even otherwise, the petitioner has not shown his locus standi to challenge the action of demolition. The trust which according to the petitioner was the owner of the temple has not filed any proceedings. 6. For the above reasons, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. (Akil Kureshi, J.) (vjn)