Kshatriya Mahasabha 224 Mahatma ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 7743 MP

                                     1
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                         AT GWALIOR
                             WP No. 20605 of 2021
                (RAHUL SAHU Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
                                            &
                             WP No. 25744 of 2021
  (KSHATRIYA MAHASABHA 224 MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD CANTT. LUCKNOW UP THR. ITS STATE OC
          CHIEF GENERAL SECRET Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

Dated : 14-06-2022
      WP.20605/2021:
      Shri Arvind Dudawat, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Arun Dudawat,
learned counsel for petitioner.
      Shri MPS Raghuvanshi, learned Additional Advocate General for

respondents/State.

Shri Suresh Agrawal, learned counsel for intervener/MP Singh/Kshatriya Community.

Shri Prashant Sharma and Shri RVS Ghuraiya, learned counsel for intervener/Gurjar Community.

WP.25744/2021:

Ms. Shobha Menon, learned Senior Counsel with Shri RBS Tomar, learned counsel for petitioner.

Shri MPS Raghuvanshi, learned Additional Advocate General for

respondents/State.

Ms. Sakshi Tomar, learned counsel for respondents/Municipal Corporation.

T hes e two writ petitions are, in fact and in effect, Public Interest Litigations. The subject matter of writ petitions revolves around the installation of statue of Late Samrat Mihir Bhoj at Girwai Naka, Ring Road, Gwalior (M.P.).

Up o n perusal of the previous order-sheets, it appears that Kshatriya community of society asserts that Samrat Mihir Bhoj was €œKshatriya€ whereas Gurjar community asserts that Samrat Mihir Bhoj was Gurjar. The contest before this Court, in fact, is on the suffix after the name of Samrat Mihir Bhoj engraved as Gurjar. Indeed, looking to the historical and geographical considerations of Gwalior-Chambal area, sensitivity attached to the contest cannot be ruled out. Under such circumstances, this Court upon conscious consideration of rival submissions had constituted a committee under the Chairmanship of Commissioner (Revenue) vide its order dated 24.09.2021.

Shri Raghuvanshi, learned Additional Advocate General, on instructions, informs that several rounds of talks have taken place and still serious deliberations are going on for amicable resolution of the dispute.

I n the backdrop of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, today Shri Dudawat and Ms. Menon, learned Senior Advocates, appearing in WP.20605/2021 and WP.25744/2021 respectively, submit that in the light of the judgment of co-ordinate Bench at Jabalpur in WP.24323/2019 (PIL) [Greeshm Jain Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.] based on the interim order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 18.01.2013 in SLP (C) No.8519/2006, let the statue installed be removed.

Shri Raghuvanshi, learned Additional Advocate General, at this stage, points out that the prayer made in WP.20605/2021 is only for taking prompt and effective steps to maintain the law and order situation in the area and any other order or direction as this Court deems proper.

Indeed, in the second writ petition, the prayer is that of a declaration that suffix “Gurjar†engraved after the name Samrat

Mihir Bhoj is illegal and in violation of the resolution dated 14.12.2015 (Annexure P-6). However, in the alternative prayer with reference to the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court, further declaration is sought to declare that resolution dated 14.12.2015 is contemptuous to the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.8519/2006 and for maintaining status-quo ante, which existed on 18.01.2013 in Gwalior city. It is further submitted that uptill now either party has raised submissions only in the context of justifiability of engraved word Gurjar€ with due advertence to the historical, mythological and religious citations through literature. The alternative prayer as aforesaid has never been insisted upon. He further submits that in the wake of ensuing elections of local bodies in the entire State of Madhya Pradesh, particularly with reference to Gwalior-Chambal division, it may not be possible to seek comprehensive instructions. Under such circumstances, looking to the sensitivity of the matter where emotions and feelings of people of two strong communities i.e. Gurjar and Kshatriya are involved, as indicated above, it would be expedient to grant time for seeking instructions and hence, in the obtaining facts and circumstances, prays for eight weeks' time.

Prayer is accepted.

List along with WP.20605.2021 after eight weeks, as prayed.

                                    (ROHIT ARYA)                                     (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
                                       JUDGE                                                  JUDGE

                       pd

        Digitally signed by PAWAN DHARKAR



PAWAN
        DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
        PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH
        COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
        GWALIOR, postalCode=474001,
        st=Madhya Pradesh,



DHARK
        2.5.4.20=5da1b3ce5c6aee672b1f51a5cf
        f5661c113046ab7ebb8031c36dcac447
        2c040a,
        pseudonym=22FE9CB9F7CF0345E7FFA
        C9031E38DF6A29B4C10,



AR
        serialNumber=C72B9531562BC6028F5
        D6E42E82477C85878470B30E4A7672C
        CA523E83C0BCB9, cn=PAWAN
        DHARKAR
        Date: 2022.06.15 11:37:52 +05'30'