Sandhya Pant vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J

The petitioner claims that her father-in-law (since deceased) and thereafter her deceased husband were the priest of “Chitai Golu Devta

Templeâ€​ at Almora. A writ petition was filed before this Court being Writ Petition (PIL) No.131 of 2018 “Deepak Ruwali Vs. District Magistrate,

Almora & others†in the form of Public Interest Litigation alleging mismanagement of “Chitai Golu Devta Temple†and prayed that the Court

must appoint independent Committee of Management to administer the functioning of the Temple. The petitioner in that writ petition had made a

reference of earlier writ petition being Writ Petition (PIL) No.64 of 2012, “In-re Trust/Board Jageshwar Dham Vs. State of Uttarakhand &

others†where the Division Bench of this Court had issued directions of improvement of “Jageshwar Dham Templeâ€, which is also in Almora

and similar direction was sought. The Division Bench of this Court disposed of the writ petition by passing the following order:-

“7. It is no doubt true that, in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 64 of 2012, a Division Bench of this Court had issued directions for improvement of the

Jageshwar Dham temple, which is worshipped by several thousands of people. The Chitai Golu Devta temple is also visited by thousands of devotees.

The manner in which the nonreligious affairs of the temple should be regulated, and a management committee should be constituted for the

administration and development of the said temple, are all matters in the executive realm. The fact, however, remains that funds received by the

temple, from the general public, cannot be permitted to be misappropriated by those administering the temple, as such funds are to be utilized primarily

for the development of the temple itself, including for providing amenities to those who come to visit the temple in large numbers.

Both Sri Amar Murti Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri S.S. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State Government,

state that the Department of Dharmasva falls under the Secretary, Tourism.

Let the Secretary, Tourism, Government of Uttarakhand be, suo motu, impleaded as the 9th respondent in this writ petition.

The District Magistrate, Almora shall forthwith, and in any event within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, forward a

copy of the five-member inquiry report to the Secretary, Tourism, Government of Uttarakhand who shall, at the earliest and in any event within four

months from the date of receipt of the report of the five-member Inquiry Committee, examine the matter and take a considered decision for

constitution of an independent Managing Committee for proper administration of the non-religious activities of the temple, and for proper utilization of

the public funds, received by the temple, towards development and management of the temple itself, and for providing better amenities to the devotees

who visit the temple.

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.â€​

Consequent to the said decision, the Secretary, Tourism has appointed a Committee of Management and now the Temple i.e. “Chitai Golu Devta

Temple†is being looked after by a Committee appointed by the State Government. This is challenged before this Court by the petitioner who also

states that she was never a party in the Public Interest Litigation.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned State Counsel, there is no occasion for interfering in the matter,

particularly, in view of the fact that the appointment of an independent Committee of Management which presently looks into the affairs of the

“Chitai Golu Devta Temple†is in view of the order of the Division Bench of this Court. It would be appropriate if at all the petitioner move an

application before the Division Bench which was hearing that Public Interest Litigation.

This Court has been informed that the petitioner has already moved a review application, which is presently under consideration by the Division

Bench of this Court.

In view thereof, no interference is being called for in the matter. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.