Gujarat HC dismisses VHP plea on temple mahant appointment, says filed with ‘tangent objective’

[ad_1]

The Gujarat Excessive Courtroom on August 19 dismissed a 2017 public curiosity litigation filed by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) in search of that the courtroom direct the state to nominate one Kalubharti Guru Vitthalbharti because the mahant and pujari at a Shiv Temple in Palitana.

The division bench of Justices Vineet Kothari and Umesh Trivedi discovered the PIL to have been filed with a “tangent objective” by an area workplace bearer of VHP, “to really serve the reason for a person” –Vitthalbharti — and noticed that “it’s extremely uncertain” that the petitioner has any authorisation on behalf of the organisation to file this PIL.

The dispute revolves across the administration of Nilkanth Mahadev Temple, constructed by Jain group throughout the fort partitions of Shetrunjay hills. Because the courtroom recorded in its order, “Kalubharti Guru Vitthalbharti claims himself to be a “Mahant” and he now claims to be appointed as Pujari, keep in a single day there and handle the stated Mahadev Temple on the Shetrunjay Hills…Although this PIL Petition has been filed by Vishwa Hindu Parishad but it surely seems to be directed for the non-public acquire of…Vitthalbharti who seems to be a self assumed Mahant/Pujari belonging to Junagadh however who appears to be curious about capturing and managing the stated Nilkanth Mahadev Temple on the Shetrunjay Hills, fairly opposite to Jain tenets.”

The pujari for the stated temple is appointed by the state authorities in session with one Sheth Anandji Kalyanji Belief, a Jain belief. It was the case of the belief that Vitthalbharti and his associates “have brought on nuisance” and that no pujaris are allowed to remain in a single day on the hill “for safety of valuables, ornaments and ‘murtis’ of Gods for his or her nice worth for his or her antiquity and divine significance and to keep away from any theft or desecration.”

It was additionally the case of the state authorities that it had already appointed one Atulbhai Rathod because the pujari of the temple and in addition submitted that although the administration proper of the temple was not stored with the Jain group, and was as a substitute stored with the state which might appoint pujari sometimes for the temple, paid for by the Jain Belief, the temple was managed in accordance with the tenets of the Jain group.

The petitioner VHP had additionally submitted earlier than the courtroom that solely an individual belonging to the Brahmin group ought to have been appointed as Pujari of the stated temple and never Rathod who’s a non-Brahmin.

The courtroom famous, “We’re not conscious concerning the precise group to which the stated individual belongs nor any such materials has been positioned earlier than us that solely a Brahmin could be so appointed as a Pujari and within the absence of any problem to the stated order handed by the Dy. Collector on 13.9.2017 (appointing Rathod because the pujari), we aren’t inclined to make any touch upon the identical. Nonetheless, if this has been the custom to nominate solely a Brahmin as a ‘Pujari’ of the stated Mahadev Temple by the state authorities to date, it’s open to the State authorities to contemplate the stated facet of the matter…”

“Nonetheless, we’re of the clear opinion that…Vitthalbharti or anyone else don’t have any such proper to be so appointed as Pujari or Mahant…However, the way by which he (Vitthalbharti) is asserting his so known as self-assumed proper and is litigating by varied boards, signifies that he’s in no way an appropriate individual to be allowed to handle the stated Temple,” the courtroom additional noticed.

[ad_2]