Writ Petition No. 46839 of 2019 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. N.V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO.46839 OF 2019 (LB-BMP-PIL) BETWEEN: 1. SANATHANA KALAKSHETRA 9TH MAIN, 4TH BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BENGLAURU SRI K.S. RANGANATH S/O K.V. SURAPPA AGED 68 YEARS OCC:SECRETARY (BY SRI K.S. RAGHURAM, ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONER AND: 1 . BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER BBMP, NR SQUARE (CIRCLE) CORPORATION CIRCLE BANGALORE - 560 002 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BANGALORE CITY No.2, ALI ASKER ROAD VASANTH NAGAR BANGALORE - 560 051 (RESPONDENT No.2 IMPLEADED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 08/01/2020) - 2 - 3. SMT. LALITHA SAGIRAJU W/O S.R.SUBBARAJU AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/A NO.40, OLD KANAKAPURA MODEL HOUSE ROAD BASAVANGUDI BENGALURU SOUTH BENGALURU - 560 004 4. SMT.S.PADMA W/O S.PRABHU AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/A NO.2423, 8TH MAIN ROAD NEAR POST OFFICE BIDRAHALLI BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU - 560 070 5. SRI.A.G.SUBBARAO S/O A.V.GOPALAKRISHNA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/A NO.27, 7TH MAIN PUTTENAHALLI BRIGADE MILLENNIUM EAST GAGE J.P.NAGAR, 7TH PHASE BENGALURU SOUTH BENGALURU - 560 078 6. SRI.S.R.RAMESH S/O LATE S. RAMALINGARAJU AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/A #001 KOTA MANOR APARTMENT 1ST BLOCK, 3RD CROSS, 19TH MAIN NEAR J.P.NAGAR CLUB J.P.NAGAR 2ND PHASE BENGALURU SOUTH BENGALURU - 560 078 7. SMT.JYOTHI. K W/O SRI.S.R.RAMESH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/A #001 KOTA MANOR APARTMENT - 3 - 1ST BLOCK, 3RD CROSS, 19TH MAIN NEAR J.P.NAGAR CLUB J.P.NAGAR 2ND PHASE BENGALURU SOUTH BENGALURU – 560 078 8. SRI.C.RAMACHANDRA RAJU S/O LATE C.NARAYANA RAJU AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/A NO.1094, 19TH MAIN 3RD CROSS, J.P.NAGAR 2ND PHASE BENGALURU SOUTH BENGALURU - 560 078 9. SMT.LAKSHMI W/O SRI.C.RAMACHANDRA RAJU AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/A NO.1094, 19TH MAIN 3RD CROSS, J.P.NAGAR 2ND PHASE BENGALURU SOUTH BENGALURU - 560 078 10. SRI.C.R.SURAJ S/O SRI.C.RAMACHANDRA RAJU AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/A NO.1094, 19TH MAIN 3RD CROSS, J.P.NAGAR 2ND PHASE BENGALURU SOUTH BENGALURU - 560 078 11. SMT. SARASWATHI W/O SRINIVASA RAKU.K AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/A NO.3, 19TH MAIN, 3RD CROSS J.P.NAGAR 2ND PHASE BENGALURU - 560 078 12. SRI.B.L.SANJEEV S/O D.LINGA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/A NO.706, SHRINIVASA NILAYA 24TH ΜΑΙΝ, 14TH CROSS - 4 - 2ND PHASE, J.P.NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 078
Legal Reasoning
13. SMT. H. P. SHASHIKALA W/O B.L.SANJEEV AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/A NO.706, SHRINIVASA NILAYA 24ΤΗ ΜΑΙΝ, 14TH CROSS 2ND PHASE, J.P.NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 078 14. SRI. RAJESH KUMAR S/O CHHAGAN RAJ AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/A NO.67, 38TH CROSS 8TH MAIN, 5TH BLOCK NEAR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE JAYANAGAR BENGALURU SOUTH BENGALURU - 560 041 15. SRI.S.R.SOMARAJU S/O S.RAMALINGA RAJU AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/A NO.3, 3RD CROSS K.R.LAYOUT, J.P.NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 078 16. SRI.KESHAVAMURTHY.B S/O K.BALARAMAN AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/A NO.34, 1ST B MAIN ROAD VIVEKANANDA NAGAR KATHIRIGUPPE BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE NEAR YELLAMMA TEMPLE BENGALURU - 560 086 17. SMT.MANJULA W/O S.R.MAHANANDA RAJU AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/A 19, 2ND MAIN ROAD - 5 - NEAR YUEDIYR LAKE BASAVANGUDI BENGALURU - 560 004 18. SRI.S.R.MAHANANDA RAJU S/O S.RAMALINGARAJU AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/A 19, 2ND MAIN ROAD NEAR YUEDIYR LAKE BASAVANGUDI BENGALURU - 560 004 19. SRI.N. VENKATASWAMY S/O NARASARAJU AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/A NO.21, A STREET 1ST MAIN ROAD NEAR GUDDADAHALLI MYSORE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 026 20. SMT.K.UMA W/O P.G.MOHAN AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/A NO.17, A STREET 1ST MAIN ROAD, NEAR GUDDADAHALLI MYSORE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 026 21. SMT.VARALAKSHΜΙ D/O GANGARAJU AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/A NO.21, A STREET NEAR NEW CHURCH NEAR GUDDADAHALLI MYSORE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 026 22. SRI. BHASKAR RAJU S/O GANGARAJU AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/A # 12, 1ST MAIN ROAD - 6 - "A" CROSS, NEW GUDDADAHALLI GOVERNMENT ELECTRIC FACTORY MYSORE ROAD BENGALURU – 560 026 23. SMT. MALATHI W/O N. VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/A NO.21, 1ST MAIN, "A" CROSS NEW GUDDADAHALLI MYSORE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 026 24. SRI.MOHAN S/O GANGARAJU AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/A NO.2, 1ST MAIN, "A" CROSS NEW GUDDADAHALLI MYSORE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 026 25. SRI.K.S. SHADAKSHARI S/O SHIVANAND AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/A NO.64, 3RD MAIN 5TH CROSS, CHAMRAJPET BENGALURU - 560 018 26. SMT.K.S. SUNANDA W/O VEERBADRAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/A NO.64, 3RD MAIN 5TH CROSS, CHAMRAJPET BENGALURU - 560 018 27. SRI.VITTAL R S/O RANGA RAO T.S. AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/A NO.83, GIAGONAL ROAD V.V.PURAM, BENGALURU SOUTH BASAVANGUDI BENGALURU - 560 004 - 7 - 28. SMT.GAYATHRI W/O R.VITTAL AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/A NO.83, GIAGONAL ROAD V.V.PURAM, BENGALURU SOUTH BASAVANGUDI BENGALURU - 560 004 29. SRI.DEVARAJU.S.S S/O MALLAMMA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/A NO.277, 6TH CROSS BHUBANESHWARI NAGAR BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE KATHRIGUPPE BENGALURU - 560 065 30. SRI.RAMAKRISHNA C S/O CHANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/A NO.16, 8TH MAIN ROAD TATA SILK FARM THYAGARAJA NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 028 31. SMT. SAROJA W/O RAMAKRISHNA C AGED ABOUT 51 R/A NO.16, 8TH MAIN ROAD TATA SILK FARM THYAGARAJA NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 028 32. SRI.SATISH S/O VEERABHADRE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/A 7TH CROSS JAYANAGAR 7TH BLOCK BIDRAHALLI BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU - 560 070 - 8 - 33. SRI.CHANDRA S/O VENKATAРРА AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/A 11TH CROSS AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI BASAVESHWARANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 079 34. SMT. RADHA.M W/O CHANDRA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/A 11TH CROSS AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI BASAVESHWARANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 079 35. SRI.D.M.VISHWANATH S/O M.V.DESHPANDE AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/A NO.25, ANIRUDHA BAPU NIVAS 7TH MAIN, BANK OF BARODA COLONY BEHIND BRIGADE MILLENNIUM APARTMENTS J.P.NAGAR 7TH PHASE PUTTENAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 078 36. SRI.M.D.PURUSHOTHAMACHAR S/O PURUSHOTHAM D AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/A NO.6, ISEC MAIN ROAD NEAR VEERANJANEYA TEMPLE NAGARABHAVI VILLAGE BENGALURU NORTH NAGARABHAVI BENGALURU - 560 072 37. SMT.K.S.LATHA W/O M.D.PURUSHOTHAMA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/A NO.32/2, 2ND CROSS NAGARABHAVI - 9 - BENGALURU NORTH BENGALURU - 560 072 38. SMT.K.R.BHAGYA W/O A.G.SUBBARAO AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/A NO.27, 7TH MAIN PUTTENAHALLI BRIGADE MILLENIUM EAST GATE J.P.NAGAR 7TH PHASE BENGALURU - 560 078 39. SRI.MURALI S/O MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/A NO.220, 5TH CROSS BHUBANESHWARI NAGAR BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE KATHRIGUPPE BENGALURU - 560 065 40. SRI.AMARNATH K.R S/O LATE SRI. RAGUPATHI CHETTY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/A NO.797, 12TH A CROSS 22ND MAIN, NEAR R.V.DENTAL COLLEGE J.P.NAGAR 2ND PHASE BENGALURU - 560 078 41. SRI.K.MUDLAIAH S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/A NO.22, KOTHNOOR DINNE MAIN ROAD NEAR BK CIRCLE PAVAMANA NAGARA SUBBARAJU LAYOUT J.P.NAGAR 8TH PHASE BENGALURU - 560 078 42. SRI.SHIVARAJU S/O LINGEGOWDA - 10 - AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/A KOTHANOOR ROAD CHUNCHAGHATTA J.P.NAGAR 7TH PHASE GOVINDAPPA BUILDING ΚΟΝΑΝΑΚUΝΤΕ BENGALURU - 560 062 43. SMT.M.S.VANI W/O A.G.PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/A NO.28, PRAKRUTI, 7TH MAIN BRIGADE MILLENNIUM EAST GATE J.P.NAGAR 7TH PHASE BENGALURU – 560 078 44. SRI.A.G.PRAKASH S/O A.V.GOPALA KRISHNA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/A NO.28, PRAKRUTI, 7TH MAIN BRIGADE MILLENNIUM EAST GATE J.P.NAGAR 7TH PHASE BENGALURU - 560 078 45. SRI.B.SHIVANNA S/O BORAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/A No.42, 12TH ΜΑΙΝ 7TH CROSS, RAGHAVENDRA TEMPLE ROAD R.V.BLOCK, SRINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 050 46. SMT.NIRUPAMA.G W/O A.V.GOPALAKRISHNAMURTHI R/A NO.28, PRAKRUTI, 7TH MAIN BRIGADE MILLENNIUM EAST GATE J.P.NAGAR 7TH PHASE BENGALURU - 560 078 47. SRI.K.JOGI GOWDA S/O KULLEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS - 11 - R/A NO.10/1, GROUND FLOOR 4TH CROSS, BEHIND BASAVA TEMPLE BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE NARAYAN RAO LAYOUT VTC HOSAKEREHALLI KATHIGUPPE, POST HOSAKEREHALLI BENGALURU - 560 085 48. SRI.SRIKANTAIAH B.S S/O SHIVALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/A NO.512, 10TH MAIN ROAD KALAPPA BLOCK SRINAGAR, BANASHANKARI BENGALURU - 560 050 49. SRI.B.V.SHOMASHEKAR S/O B.L.VEERABHADRE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/A NO.492/C, 7TH CROSS 7TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR KAGALIPURA BENGALURU - 560 082 50. SRI.S.KRISHNA MURTHY S/O LATE SRINIVASAIAH AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS R/A NO.927, 1ST FLOOR 28TH MAIN, 9TH BLOCK JAYANAGAR EAST BENGALURU - 560 069 51. SMT.GEETHA W/O SOMARAJU S.R. AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/A NO.3, 3RD CROSS J.P.NAGAR 6TH PHASE BENGALURU - 560 078 52. SRI.S.P.SANDEEP RAJU S/O R.PRABHU AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS - 12 - R/A NO.2423, 8TH MAIN ROAD NEAR POST OFFICE BANASHANKARI II STAGE BIDRAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 070 53. SRI.ANANTHARAJU S S/O SUBBARAJU S AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/A No.1584, 11TH MAIN ROAD 4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 041 (RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 53 ARE IMPLEADED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 14.03.2025) ... RESPONDENTS (SRI PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI H. DEVENDRAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT No.1 SRI K. SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT No.2 SRI ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI SANDEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 53) --- THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE BBMP TO DEMOLISH THE UNAUTHORISED TEMPLE CONSTRUCTED ON THE FOOTPATH AT 9TH MAIN ROAD, 4TH BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU AT THE EARLIEST & ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS PRONOUNCED AS UNDER: - 13 - CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA) Heard learned advocate Mr. K.S. Raghuram for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. Pawan Kumar for learned advocate Mr. H. Devendrappa for respondent No.1, learned Advocate General Mr. K. Shashi Kiran Shetty along with learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Niloufer Akbar for respondent No.2 and learned Senior Advocate Mr. Ashok Haranahalli along with learned advocate Mr. Sandeep Patil for respondent Nos.3 to 53. 2. This petition, in the nature of public interest litigation, is filed by the petitioner-Sanathana Kalakshetra which claims to be a cultural society registered under the Societies Registration Act. 2.1 The case of the petitioner is that the temple known as Muneshwara Swamy Temple is constructed unauthorisedly on the footpath of the 9th main road, Jayanagar area of Bengaluru city, and that the respondents have failed to remove the structure, thus have not complied with the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. - 14 - 2.2 Prayer is made to direct respondent No.1-the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to demolish the said structure of the temple. 2.3 The entire public interest petition is based on the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. State of Gujarat and others which was Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.8519 of 2006 in which, it was stipulated that action may be taken only in respect of the temples or religious structures constructed after 07.12.2009. In the said public interest petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, interim orders were passed from time to time on 29.09.2009, 16.02.2010 and on 31.01.2018 taking note of the earlier orders. These orders are highlighted for their effect in the succeeding paragraphs herein. 3. It is alleged in the petition that the existence of temple has been creating nuisance to the public at large and causing a threat to the safety of the pedestrians. It is further alleged that the temple is an obstruction in the locomotion and has been blocking the way to the auditorium named Sanathana Kalakshetra. It is averred that despite various letters and representations, no action is taken, as such, the petition was required to be filed in the public interest jurisdiction of this court. - 15 - 3.1 Respondent No.1-the BBMP, after several representations prepared a note dated 03.06.2017 regarding the status and the attendant facts of the temple structure. The Assistant Executive Engineer inspected the place, gave his report stating that the ancient Muneshwara Swamy Temple stands, next to the pupil tree on the footpath and it is in front of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited compound. In the report, it was stated that on inquiry with the general public, the temple is said to be an ancient temple. It was further stated that none of the residents of Jayanagar or surrounding areas have raised any grievance about the existence of the temple and the said temple is in existence since the year 1854. 3.2 The temple structure was intended and proposed to be demolished and even the demolition team of the respondent-BBMP went at the site, however, for various reasons including the resistance by the local people and the covid-19 situation, the demolition could not take place. 3.3 In the proceedings of the petition, Interim Application No.1 of 2020 as well as Interim Application No.3 of 2020 came to be filed on 14.02.2020 and on 08.07.2020 respectively which were for impleadment. By filing I.A.No.1 of 2020, the confederation of All - 16 - Welfare Association (Registered), Jayanagar sought impleadment as party respondent No.2. I.A No. 1 of 2020 came to be dismissed by the order dated 14.07.2020 by the court. 3.4 Another impleading application No.3 of 2020 which was subsequently filed on 08.07.2020 was by 51 persons who were the residents of the Jayanagar area and described themselves to be the devotees of the temple Muneshwara Swamy Temple. 3.4.1 It was stated by the applicants-residents that the temple was established in the year 1854 in Survey Nos.22 and 23 and at that time, it was Taiappanahalli Village. Thereafter, the City Improvement Trust Board acquired the said land for the purpose of residential layout and the said temple was not acquired, however, the rest of the area was converted into sites which came to be allotted to the respective allottees stating about the location of the temple. It was stated that the temple was located adjacent to the footpath and in the middle of two trees of the road side. It was stated that the footpath which is in front of the temple is of the length of 1.50 kms and the temple has never caused any obstruction to the pedestrians walking on the footpath. - 17 - 3.4.2 The impleading applicants, thereafter highlighted about the spot inspection conducted by the BBMP to report that the temple is an ancient temple and that only because of the road widening, it fell within the footpath. It was claimed that the temple was not an illegal religious structure and not constructed after the formation of road or the layout but existed prior thereto since 1854. It was averred that idol or the deity in the temple also indicates that the origin of the temple is ancient. 3.5 In course of the proceedings of the petition, the court passed order dated 14.07.2020 observing inter alia that for one or the other reason, the illegal structure of the temple was not removed though the undertaking of the BBMP was recorded in terms of the order dated 17.02.2010 that they would do the needful for demolition of the structure. It was stated that the State Government had passed the said order on the basis of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 07.12.2009 in Special Leave to Appeal No.8519 of 2006. 3.5.1 With regard to the prayer for impleadment, the court was of the view that the residents' association or individual residents could not support unauthorised structure standing on the footpath and on the contrary to the duty of the citizens to assist the authorities that - 18 - illegal constructions are demolished. It was by this order that I.A.No.1 of 2020 came to be rejected. 3.6 It appears that since the authorities activated themselves to demolish the temple, the applicants of I.A.No.3 of 2020 approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.8906 of 2020. Note sheet dated 23.10.2018 prepared by the authorities of the BBMP was relied on. The Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the following order on 11.08.2020, "Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Advocate to Note-sheet dated invited our attention 23.10.2018 (Annexure P-2 to the petition). It was submitted that this Note-sheet denoted the status the temple to be ancient and that even while the matter was pending consideration by the State, the Original-Writ Petition was filed seeking demolition of the structure and to this petition the State was not impleaded as a party. It was further submitted that the affidavit filed by the Assistant Executive Engineer in the writ petition had also stated that the temple was constructed well before 07.02.2009. Since the State was not a party to the proceedings, we direct impleadment of the State Government the present proceedings Let amended cause title be filed within three days from today. in Issue notice, returnable on 14.09.2020. Dasti in addition. - 19 - Liberty to serve the learned Standing Counsel for the State. Pending further consideration, the status quo as on today with regard to the structure in question, shall be maintained by the parties." 3.7 Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court took notice of the Note Sheet dated 23.10.2018 prepared by the BBMP observing that the temple was ancient and having been in existence since very long, further observed that in the affidavit filed by the Assistant Executive Engineer, it was stated that the temple was constructed well before 07.02.2009. Therefore, directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the structure of the temple while issuing notice. 3.8 Another Civil Appeal No.843 of 2024 arising out of the aforementioned Special Leave Appeal, filed by the impleading applicants of I.A.No.3 of 2020 came to be disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as per the order dated 22.01.2024. Thereby, the order dated 14.07.2020 passed by the High Court was set aside and the applicants were permitted to file reply in the proceedings of the writ petition and the High Court was directed to
Decision
dispose of the writ petition within stipulated time. The status quo in respect of demolition was ordered in the aforementioned order - 20 - dated 11.08.2020 and the same was directed to be continued till the decision in the writ petition. 3.9 The aforementioned order dated 22.01.2024 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was as under, "1. Applications seeking exemption from filing court fee are allowed. 2. Leave granted. 3. Heard the learned senior counsel appellants as well as learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. for 4. The short issue that arises for consideration is whether the appellants, who claim themselves to be devotees of the Nagarakallu Munneshwara Swamy Temple at Jayanagar, Bengaluru, have a locus standi and right to be heard before the High Court, in the Public Interest Litigation (PIL), wherein directions for demolition of the said temple have been issued. in that, the peculiar 5. During the course of the hearing, the learned counsel for the respondents have agreed to the facts and position circumstances of this case, the appellants could be given one opportunity to file their counter affidavits in Writ Petition No.46839/2019 (PIL) pending before the High Court of Karnataka. Consequently, their representative capacity for and on behalf of all the devotees of the aforesaid temple. The instant appeal is, accordingly, allowed in part with the following directions: - they shall be heard in (i) The impugned order dated 14.7.2020 passed by the High Court is set aside. - 21 - (ii) The appellants are permitted to file a counter affidavit in W.P. No.46839/2019 (PIL) on or before 15.02.2024. No further opportunity shall be granted to them in this regard. (iii) Similarly, no other devotee, i.e., other than to seek the appellants, shall be permitted impleadment or file a new counter affidavit. (iv) It is clarified that the counter affidavit to be filed by the appellants shall be on behalf of all the devotees. (v) The respondents shall be at liberty to file a rejoinder to the said counter affidavit within two weeks from 15.2.2024 onwards. (vi) The High Court is requested to take up Writ Petition No. 46839/2019 (PIL) for a final hearing at the earliest, preferably within three months. (vii) The parties are directed to extend full cooperation to the High Court for the early adjudication of the matter. (viii) It is further clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. (ix) The status quo, re: demolition, as ordered by this Court on 11.8.2020, shall continue to operate till the above-mentioned writ petition is decided. 6. As a sequel to the above, the pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of." 3.9.1 It may be stated that since I.A. No.3 of 2020 for impleading remained pending, after and in view of the aforesaid order, the application has been granted by the court by a separate order of even date. - 22 - 4. At the hearing of the present petition, the respondents relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. State of West Bengal [(2004) 3 SCC 349] to submit that in the public interest petition, the locus standi of the petitioner is one of the most relevant aspect to consider and unless the petitioner has been promoting a genuine public interest, the petition should not be entertained at the instance of a party, who in guise of the public interest litigation grind personal interest. 5. It is true that the aspect of locus standi is one of the consideration of the court to decide whether the public interest petition should be entertained or not. In this case also, it has to be observed that there are circumstances to reflect upon adversely on the bona fides of the petitioner as public interest petitioner. Though, it is claimed that the petition is filed in public interest as the existence of the temple structure becomes an obstruction, the factual position emerges is that the said small temple of Muneshwara Swamy is located just opposite to the site/building of the petitioner where the petitioner has been carrying on the commercial activity. The petitioner claims to be a Sanathana Kalakshetra by name. - 23 - 5.1 It is also to be observed that the case of the public interest petitioner is that the temple is inconvenience, an obstruction to the pedestrians and is on the footpath, but none of the members of the public nor any of the authorities have complained about the inconvenience to the pedestrians or even otherwise to the vehicular traffic, on account of location of the temple and its existence. 5.2 There is a reason to believe that the filing of the present public interest petition is guided by inconvenience which is personal inconvenience of the petitioner, since the temple is situated very close and quite opposite to the building of the petitioner. 5.3 While the petitioner has projected himself to be the Secretary of Sanathana Kalakshetra, the doubts are entertainable since the affidavit has been silent about any authorization given to the petitioner by the society-Sanathana Kalakshetra to file the public interest petition nor there are averments by the petitioner on this score. 6. Now, in the proceedings of the aforementioned Special Leave to Appeal No.8519 of 2006, which dealt with the issue of existence and removal of illegal religious structures which stand on - 24 - the public land as encroachment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed order on 29th September 2009, and directed that thenceforth, that is from the date of the order, no unauthorized construction shall be carried out in the name of temple, church, mosque, gurudwara, etc. 6.1 The said order dated 29th September 2009 was referred to in the subsequent order 7th December 2009, extracted hereunder, “This Court on 29th September, 2009, after taking into consideration the letter dated 19th September, 2009, sent by the Union Home Secretary to the learned Solicitor General of India, we passed the following order: “We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Looking to the far-reaching implications and consequences of the orders of this Court, on the oral request of the learned Solicitor General of India, we deem it appropriate to implead all the States and the Union Territories as respondents to this petition. The Registry is directed to issue notices to all the States and the Union Territories within three days. The Union of India is directed to supply the entire set of papers to all the Standing Counsel appearing for the State Governments and the Union Territories. The States and the Union Territories may file replies within four weeks and the Union of India is granted liberty to file rejoinder within two weeks thereafter. As an interim measure, we direct that henceforth no unauthorized construction shall be carried out or permitted in the name of Temple, Church, Mosque or Gurudwara etc. on - 25 - public streets, public parks or other public places etc. In the respect unauthorized of construction of religious nature which has already taken place, the State Governments and the Union Territories shall review the same on case to case basis and take appropriate steps as expeditiously as possible. (bold made for the present order) In order to ensure compliance of our directions, we direct all the District Collectors and Magistrates/Deputy Commissioners in charge of the Districts total compliance of the order passed by us. They are directed to submit a report within four weeks to the concerned Chief Secretaries or the Administrators of the Union Territories who in turn will send a report to this Court within eight weeks from today. to ensure there that is List this matter for further directions on 7th December, 2009.” 6.1.1 Thereafter on 07.12.2009 order was passed additionally as under, “All the States and the Union Territories have been served. Despite service, most of the States and Union Territories have not filed affidavits as directed by this Court. In the interest of justice, we the Chief grant one more opportunity Secretaries/ Administrators of respective States and Union Territories to file affidavits. Let the same be filed within six weeks, failing which the and Chief Administrators shall remain present in Court on the next date of hearing. Secretaries concerned to the - 26 - In case the Chief Secretaries and the Administrators have not issued circulars to all the Collectors and the District Magistrates of the Districts, it shall be issued within two weeks from today. The Chief Secretaries, in consultation with the respective Governments are directed to frame the policy in respect of existing unauthorised construction of religious nature, which had already taken place. This Court directed the respondents to review the same on case to case basis. Let the policies be formulated by all the States and the Union Territories within four weeks from today. are We that reiterating the Chief Secretaries, the concerned District Magistrates in- and the Collectors/Deputy Commissioners charge of total compliance of our order. Any breach in this respect shall be viewed seriously by this Court. the Districts must ensure the We direct Chief Secretaries/Administrators of all the States and Union Territories to circulate copies of the order dated 29th September, 2009 and this order to all the District Magistrates and Collectors/Deputy Commissioners, other public bodies and local bodies. We direct the learned Standing counsel appearing the Union for various States and Territories to ensure that all copies of the affidavits are filed in this Court on or before 27th January, 2010 with an advance copy to the learned Solicitor General of India, who is requested to get all these affidavits tabulated and submit a report to this Court on or before 2nd February, 2010. Place this petition for further directions on 4th February, 2010. Looking to the gravity of this that no order or direction matter, we direct - 27 - inconsistent to our orders, shall be passed by any other Court in the country.” 6.1.2 The next order was passed on 16.02.2010 by the Supreme Court, which is extracted hereinbelow, “In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 29th September, 2009, by which this Court directed that henceforth no unauthorized construction shall be carried out or permitted in the name of Temple, Church, Mosque or Gurudwara etc. on public streets, public parks or other public places, the affidavits of all the States and the Union Territories, except the State of Uttarakhand, have been filed. All the States and the Union Territories have taken necessary steps further to ensure unauthorized construction shall take place and Court's directions are seriously and meticulously complied with. that no The other part of the directions issued on 29th September, 2009, were that in respect of unauthorized construction of religious nature which has already taken place on public streets, public the State parks or other public places, Governments and the Union Territories were directed to review the same on case to case basis and take appropriate steps as expeditiously as possible. We do not find comprehensive and satisfactory affidavits as far as this direction of the order is concerned. Therefore, it has become imperative to direct all the States and the Union Territories formulate comprehensive policy regarding the removal/relocation/regularisation of the unauthorized construction within six weeks' from today. The policy should clearly indicate within what period the States and the Union Territories are going to fully comply with its policy to remove/ relocate/regularise the unauthorized construction. to - 28 - We also direct all the States and the Union Territories to identify unauthorized construction of religious nature on public streets, public parks and public places within six weeks' from today. We direct the Chief Secretary of the State of Uttarakhand to file an affidavit within two weeks from today. In case the affidavit is not filed, the Chief Secretary shall remain present in Court on the next date of hearing. We also direct all the Chief Secretaries of the the Union the Administrators of States and Territories to file further comprehensive affidavits within six weeks' from today. The special leave petition is adjourned to 6th April, 2010.” 6.2 Thus the Supreme Court by the aforesaid orders required the authorities not to permit any unauthorized construction of temple, mosque, etc., from the date onwards. It is further directed that in respect of the alleged unauthorized construction of religious nature which have already taken place, the State Government and Union Territories concerned shall review the same on case to case basis and take appropriate steps if required. 7. Placing the facts of this case in the context of the observation and direction of the Apex Court in the orders passed in Special Leave Petition No.8519 of 2006 as above, and evaluated in the affidavit dated 11.12.2019 filed by the Assistant Executive Engineer of the BBMP, it is stated that the temple in question was - 29 - constructed before 07.12.2009. Since the temple is constructed before the said date, it would not invite a ready action of demolition unless it is established that the construction is after 07.12.2009. It is a common case of the respondent herein that the temple was set up years back in 1854 which was much before the acquisition of land for formation of layout named Jayanagar, the temple existed since that time and the road was subsequently widened. 7.1 It is the case therefore that the temple is 170 years old and the deity therein also is indicative the age of the temple. Furthermore, filed notings of the BBMP were indicative that the temple has not been causing any inconvenience to the public at large. The report of the BBMP indicated that the construction in any case was before 07.12.2009, which is the date of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court. 7.2 Learned advocate for the petitioner has produced the reports of Department of Archeology, Museums and Heritage and the Mythic Society dated 08.09.2020 and 31.08.2020. The report of archaeology refers to the age of the stones used to renovate the temple. The report is silent on the period of its existence. Similarly, the report of the Mythic Society has only stated that there are no entries regarding the idol in the temple. - 30 - 7.3 Though the reports referred to above are not clear as to the exact period of the temple in existence, however, one factual aspect emerges is that the temple is constructed prior to 29.09.2009. In such circumstances, without any evidence on record, no declaration can be granted. As to the period from which the temple is in existence, in the context of rival contentions, is a fact finding exercise. 8. From various affidavits and reports filed by the respective parties, an attempt was made to ascertain as to whether pedestrians way is blocked by the temple. In order to find out the above aspect, the Court referred to the photographs filed by the respective parties. The photographs prima facie show that on both sides of the temple, parallel to the road, there are two huge trees. In fact, portion of the trees occupies part of the road. There is virtually no scope for increasing the width of the footpath upon demolition of the temple or in any case it is limited. Furthermore, if the stand of the impleading applicants who are the residents of the area and who frequently visit the temple, is that temple is not causing any inconvenience to the pedestrians is seen on comparison of photographs on record, the said say cannot be outrightly rejected. - 31 - 9. Be as it may, the present petition is based on the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 29.09.2009. In the light of the rival contentions and reports regarding the date of the construction of the temple and in light of what is recorded hereinabove, it is for the State Government to review on case to case basis and take appropriate steps. 10. For all the aforesaid reasons, the Court finds no justifiable grounds to grant relief to the petitioner. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Dismissal of this writ petition will however not preclude the State Government or State authority to verify the factual position and to act as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.8519 of 2006 dated 29.09.2009. Sd/- (N.V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (K.V. ARAVIND) JUDGE AHB