Smt. Neelam Sharma vs Govt. Of National Capital ...
2004 Latest Caselaw 62 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Learned counsel for respondent no.7 submits that counter affidavit filed by respondent no.7 be also treated and read on behalf of respondents 8 and 9. Counter affidavit on behalf of respondent no.1 has already been filed.

2. Rule.

With the consent of the parties the matter is taken up for disposal today.

Petitioners numbering three happen to be the wives of officials posted at Delhi Fire Service Station, Geeta Colony, Delhi. Petitioners have sought directions to be issued to respondents 1-6 in terms of prayers A to H in the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the main prayer is that the land and the building be protected and not allowed to be partitioned by the respondents 1-6. The case of the petitioners is that the respondents 7-9 who have taken control of the temple be disassociated from the same as they are trespassers and not even the residents of the Geeta Colony Fire Station Complex. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents 7-9 in collusion with the previous SHO obtained the keys of the temple and are presently in control of the same.

3. I find that petitioners seek to give their inter se disputes with respondents 7 to 9, the colour of enforcement of statutory rights by seeking directions against respondents 1-6, namely, Government of NCT, Chief Fire Station Officer, Chief Engineer of CPWD, Commissioner of Police, Station House Officer, etc., alleging that the respondents 1 to 6 have failed in their duty to protect the temple.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents be restrained from partitioning the temple or permitting respondents 7-9 to continue with the control of temple. Stand of respondents 7-9 is that the temple had been constructed more than 35 years ago by joint efforts of the employees of the Delhi Fire Service and the residents of the area which include residents other than that of Fire Station Geeta Colony. All had joined together and raised the temple. It has been managed by constituting a Managing Committee. Respondent No.7 claims to be the President of the Managing Committee. The question as to who is entitled to manage the affairs of the temple, which had been constructed would be an inter se dispute between the petitioners and other residents of the area. The writ jurisdiction is not meant to settle such inter se disputes.

5. Mr. V.K.Shali, learned counsel for respondents 1-6 has submitted that an enquiry has already been ordered to ascertain as to how the temple was constructed within the Fire Station Complex and to fix the responsibility therefore of the erring officers who allowed it . He submits that a policy decision has been taken in terms of which the Lt.Governor has constituted a Committee to review all such cases and considering the individual situation and the sensitive nature on account of religious sentiments involved, make recommendations. He submits that the Government's approach is that initially persuasion would be used to have the idols in the temples shifted to suitable location as may be desired by the parties and in case the same fails, action would be taken for repossession of the land and premises in accordance with law.

6. In view of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. Petitioners, if so advised, may seek their remedies in the Civil Forum in accordance with law. Learned counsel for respondents 1-6 state that no partitioning of the land or usurpation of the title would be permitted by either the petitioners or respondents 7-9. Counsel for respondent-NCT of Delhi states necessary action in accordance with law and a decision would be taken by them within a period of six months pursuant to the recommendations of the Committee.

The Writ Petition is dismissed with aforesaid observations.