Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Proceeding Sheet vs Antaji Bhikaji on 9 December, 2022
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No: W.P.No.39487 of 2022
PROCEEDING SHEET
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
02. 09.12.2022 BKM, J.
Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned Government Pleader for
Endowments for the 3rd respondent and learned
Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent.
In pursuance of the orders of this Court
dated 06.12.2022, the learned Standing
Counsel for the 4th respondent has produced
the written instructions vide letter dated
08.12.2022, wherein it is stated that the Idols
/ Lingams are categorised in four types as per
Sastras and Upanishads i.e., (1) Swayambhu,
(2) Divyalingam, (3) Rushi Lingam and (4)
Manushya Lingam. Insofar as this subject
Temple is concerned, there is no record to show
that the subject Idol/Lingam is one of the 1st to
3rd categories of Lingams which cannot be
removed or relocated as per the Sastras.
Therefore, the subject Lingam which was
installed by the people in the olden days, can be
construed as Manushya Lingam, and it can be
removed and reinstalled in the
sanctum/sanctorium without causing any
damage to the Moolavirat Idol/ Lingam. As the
Temple is in the dilapidated condition with
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
severe drainage problem and situated in a
congested locality, at the request of majority of
the devotees of the village and the persons
associated to the said Temple, the
reconstruction activity is being under taken for
the subject Temple by the respondents with the
sanctioning of necessary funds under different
heads, specifically through CGF. The
apprehension and the contention of the
petitioner is that the respondents are intending
to remove the Principle Deity for it's
reinstallation. Once the Principle Deity was
installed long back, it cannot be removed and
reinstalled under any circumstances
specifically under the guise of reconstruction of
the whole Temple, as it is in a dilapidated
condition.
The learned Standing Counsel appearing
for the 4th respondent further submits that
after consulting the Sthapati, Veda Pandits,
Peetadhipathis, elders and devotees at large
number of the village prepared plans and
estimates in the year 2018 itself for
reconstruction of the said Temple.
In reply, the learned counsel for the
petitioner refers to Mahanirmana Tantra,
Tantra of the great liberation translated by
Arthur Avalon (Sir John Woodroffe) (1913) in
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
which under the caption of Mantra, it is quoted
that "the Deva should be worshipped everyday
according to once means. The fixed Shiva-
Lingam should on no account be removed(93).
He also refers to the order of this Court in Writ
Petition Nos. 18299, 22303 of 2021 dated
25.03.2022 and he further submits that the
said order was challenged in the Writ Appeal
No. 431 of 2022 before the Division Bench of
this Court and the same was allowed today
(09.12.2022). The order copy is yet to be
released.
The learned counsel for the petitioner
also refers to the decision of the Hon'ble High
Court reported in Second Appeal No.226 of
1998 dated 19.11.2018 in the matter of Hari
Raghunath Patvardhan Vs. Antaji Bhikaji
Patvardhan wherein it was observed as under:-
" the image is consecrated in its
present position of a number of years
and there is the existing Temple. To
remove the image from that Temple
and to install it in another building
would be practically putting up a new
Temple in place of the existing
Temple. Whatever may be the
occasion on which the installation
of a new image as a substitute for the
old may be allowable according to the
Hindu law, it is not shown on behalf
of the defendant that the ruinous
condition of the existing building is a
ground for practically removing the
image for its present place to a new
place permanently.
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
The learned counsel for the petitioner
also refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Civil Appeal No. 881-883 of 2012
dated 10.05.2022 wherein it was observed as
under:-
"The appeals were listed for
final hearing before this court on
21.04.2022. At that time, taking into
account the nature of the dispute, we
suggested to the learned senior
counsel appearing for the rival parties
that it was time for the parties to put
an end to the acrimony and restore
the status-quo ante as it prevailed for
centuries before the act of removal
and relocation."
On the strength of these judgments, the
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
once the principle Idol was installed, way back
in the history, it shall not be removed for any
other purposes even when the reconstruction of
the Temple is undertaken as it is in a
dilapidated condition.
Having regard to the above said facts and
circumstances, the respondents may proceed
with the reconstruction of the subject Temple in
accordance with the approved plan but insofar
as the principle Deity's removal and
reinstallation in the Gharbhalayam at the same
place is concerned, the respondents are
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
directed to maintain status-quo for a period of
six (6) weeks.
However, the regular sevas and offerings
as per the Agamashastras and the rituals on
which the subject Temple was founded shall go
on with NITYA DHOOPA DEEPA NAIVEDHYAM
for the principle Deity. The respondents 2 to 4
shall obtain the expert advice/opinion of the
Chief Sthapati of the Department, Veda Pandits
concerned, Archakas of the said Temple,
Peetadhipathis like His Holiness KANCHI SEER
and His Holiness Sri. VISAKHA SHARADHA
PEETAM- Swaroopanandendra Swamiji
respectively for the purpose of taking a decision,
whether to remove the principle Deity of the
subject Temple and reinstall in the same
manner without causing any slightest damage
for the Idol, if it is permissible under the
Agamashastras and the religious texts,
scriptures basing upon which the said Temple
was founded. The above said advices/opinions
shall be obtained by the respondents 2 to 4
within a period of four (4) weeks from the date
of receipt of copy of this order and the same
shall be placed before this Court by way of a
report of the 2nd respondent enclosing the said
advices/opinions in a sealed cover before the
next date of hearing.
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
The above said experts/Swamijis can
visit the subject Temple before rendering their
valuable opinion. The respondents 2 to 4 shall
make necessary arrangements for their visits
to the said Temple
List on 20.01.2023. Meanwhile the
respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are directed to file their
counter.
________
BKM, J
Issue cc by ( 12.12.2022)
(B.O)
Psr.
