[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
26 February vs District Magistrate Haridwar And ... on 26 February, 2026
2026:UHC:1440-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY
Writ Petition (M/B) No.773 of 2025
26 February, 2026
Pt. Suresh Tiwari --Petitioner
Versus
District Magistrate Haridwar and Another --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Kurban Ali and Ms. Shumayla Zafri, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Mr. Amrendra Pratap Singh, learned Addl. Advocate General along
with Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the State of
Uttarakhand.
Mr. Piyush Garg and Mr. Nikhil Singhal, learned counsel for the
applicant in impleadment application.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT :
(per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta C. J.)
1. The present writ petition has been filed
assailing an order dated 14.11.2023 passed by the
District Magistrate, Haridwar rejecting the representation
of the petitioner dated 09.08.2023.
2. In the said representation, the petitioner
alleged that he is Head Priest of Maa Mansa Devi Temple
and has right to perform pooja and archana in the said
temple as a Chief Priest till his lifetime. However, he has
been assigned other responsibilities by the Trust in an
arbitrary manner. The petitioner, accordingly, made
2026:UHC:1440-DB
prayer in his application that he may be permitted to
perform his duties as Chief Priest and appropriate
direction be issued in this regard.
3. An impleadment application has been filed on
behalf of Maa Mansa Devi Temple through trustee Mahant
Digambar Raj Giri in which the claim of the petitioner has
been denied and it is stated that he is only an employee
of the Trust and in that capacity he is being paid his
salary. It is alleged that he has no right to perform pooja
as Chief Priest as is being claimed. It is also stated that
an injunction suit being O.S. No.47 of 2025 has been
filed by the applicant-trust against the petitioner and one
another person and it is pending wherein the subject
matter of the dispute between the parties is similar.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, rebutting
the contention, submits that the said suit was for
declaration of rights in an immovable property and not
for deciding the rights of the petitioner as Chief Priest.
5. After making submissions at some length,
learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of
the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to institute
his independent suit for establishing his right as Chief
Priest. It is submitted that in such an event the findings
2026:UHC:1440-DB
recorded in the impugned order may not come in his
way.
6. The District Magistrate has rejected the
application of the petitioner by observing that no
evidence has been filed before him to establish the right
being claimed by the petitioner. The said order does not
decide right of any party.
7. Consequently, in our considered opinion, the
said order would be of no effect, in case a civil suit is
instituted by the petitioner for establishing his rights.
8. Accordingly, as prayed by learned counsel for
the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty
to the petitioner to avail civil remedies. It is further
provided that in case any civil remedy is availed by the
petitioner, the findings recorded by the District Magistrate
in the impugned order will not influence the decision of
the Court.
9. Pending application, if any, also stands
disposed of.
(MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C. J.)
(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.)
Dated: 26.02.2026
SS
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
SUKHBANT SINGH
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=71978f9c61bfde0ba69967c787b1764ea7bc7dd129a8a6380d49b1885e6
28615, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=2D8B71B8D8E345F6B7F95B1DD4FB4BEBD2B7D72C42261361AED
33172F152148D, cn=SUKHBANT SINGH
Date: 2026.02.27 15:00:49 +05'30'
