Shantveer Shivacharya Hiremath vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2026 Latest Caselaw 1880 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Shantveer Shivacharya Hiremath vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 12 March, 2026

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                                                                                                      2026:UHC:1674

                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                                  COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No             directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures



                                  WPMS No.569 of 2026
                                  Shantveer Shivacharya Hiremath
                                  and another                                            ............Petitioners
                                                            Vs.
                                  State of Uttarakhand and others                        ..........Respondents

                                  Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Mr. B.S. Adhikari, learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. Mr. Suyash Pant, learned S.C. for the State.

3. Mr. Ravi Babulkar, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and 3.

4. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby the petitioners have sought the following reliefs:-

"1. A writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioners for the post of "Rawal" in Kedarnath Ji Temple along with other candidates, strictly in accordance with Shri Badrinath and Shri Kedarnath Temple Act 1939 (Amended time to time) and customs and traditions.

2. A writ of mandamus directing the respondent 4 and respondent no.3 not to permit anyone else except present "Rawal" or the appointed "Pujari" of the temple to conduct door opening ceremony of Kedarnath Ji Temple scheduled on 22nd April 2026.

3. A writ of Mandamus directing the to conduct enquiry relating to the respodnent no.4 for not depositing any single panny by him to the respondents since his appointment as Rawal from the gifts and offerings received."

5. It is informed by learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3 that the earlier Rawal is still holding his post and there is no vacancy on the post of Rawal in Kedarnath Temple.

6. The writ petition is filed only on the apprehension that someone will be appointed in his place without following due process of law as per U.P. Shri Badrinath and Shri Kedarnath Temples Act, 1939.

7. This writ petition is highly premature and is not worthy to be entertained at this stage.

8. On the mere apprehension of the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed; there is no right in favour of the petitioner at this stage to consider such prayer even when there is no vacancy on the said post.

9. Accordingly writ petition stands dismissed in limine.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 12.03.2026 SK