Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Aug 16: Division Bench of the State High Court comprising Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sanjeev Kumar today dismissed Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging commercialization of worship at Mata Vaishnodevi Shrine.
After hearing petitioner—Advocate Summit Nayyar in person whereas Senior Advocate DC Raina with Anuj Dewan Raina and Anil Verma for the SMVDSB, the DB observed, “after considering the submissions, the issues arise for determination are whether the Shrine Board is an instrumentality of the State amenable to Article 12 of the Constitution of India and consequently whether a plea with regard to violation of fundamental rights can be raised against it? Whether the petitioner has locus to maintain the writ petition? Whether there is any element of public interest involved in this writ petition which has been filed probono publico? Whether the writ petition suffers from delay and laches? Whether the writ petition conforms to the requirements of the rules pertaining to filing of the public interest litigations?”.
“A Division Bench of this court in the case of Omkar Sharma and Ors held that even though the Shrine Board has been constituted under a statute and has a statutory status, in the absence of any kind even an iota of control of the Government- financial, functional or administrative, it cannot be said to be a State or an Authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the writ petition seeking enforcement of fundamental rights against the Shrine Board is not maintainable”, the DB said.
It is pertinent to mention that similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Bhuri Nath and Ors. “In view of the enunciation of law by the Supreme Court, it is evident that the writ petition filed against the Shrine Board seeking enforcement of fundamental rights is not maintainable. Therefore, no relief can be granted in this petition”, the DB said.
On the issue of locus, Division Bench observed, “we would not have proceeded further, however, we find that there is an increasing tendency of the Advocates filing the Public Interest Litigation. Therefore, we thought it apposite to deal with the issue”, adding “the writ petition is conspicuously silent with regard to locus of the petitioner”.
“The petitioner in his writ petition has neither stated that he ever visited the shrine of Shri Mata Vaishno Devi nor has averred that he found that the public in genuine who had visited the shrine suffered any inconvenience while paying obeisance. It is also pertinent to mention here that the petitioner nowhere discloses that any member of the public who belongs to the disadvantaged section of the society has ever approached the petitioner with regard to grievances raised in the writ petition”, the DB said, adding “the petition lacks essential particulars and has not been filed on behalf of any disadvantaged section of the society who on account of his poverty or illiteracy is unable to approach this court. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner has no locus to file this petition, pro bono public”.
Follow our WhatsApp channel