'Vested Interest, Should've Challenged All Illegal Religious Structures': MP High Court Dismisses Plea For Removal Of Temple, Imposes 25K Cost

While dismissing a plea seeking a review of an order dismissing a PIL for the removal of one particular temple in the city, the Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that the litigant who claimed to be a journalist, did not disclose why the removal of this temple was in public interest adding that he appeared to have a vested interest. The court further observed that if the litigant was aggrieved by the illegal construction of religious places, then he should have challenged all the religious structures constructed either on government land or without permission. The division bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Gajendra Singh observed, “The petitioner is not a resident of nearby places of Yashwant Niwas. He has not disclosed as to why he is only targeting one temple at Yashwant Niwas Road in public interest. Being a Journalist, he ought to have conducted a survey in Indore or Madhya Pradesh about all the illegal constructions before filing this PIL. Therefore, such a petition cannot be treated as Public Interest Litigation when the petitioner is interested only in one temple. It appears that he has some vested interest in it. We do not find any mistake apparent on the face of the record in the order passed by Division Bench to exercise the power of review.”The review petition was filed by the petitioner aggrieved by an order dismissing a Public Interest Litigation before the High Court seeking removal of a temple established in 2012 at Yashwant Niwas Road in Indore. A division bench of the high court had while relying on the Supreme Court's decision in State of Uttaranchal V/s Balwant Singh Chaufal and others, (2010) dismissed the PIL as the petitioner was not found to be a Social Worker to invoke the public interest writ petition. The bench had held that the issue of encroachment can be decided after recording the evidence and the writ petition cannot be decided based on the disputed question of facts.The petitioner in his review plea claimed that reliance on State of Uttaranchal V/s Balwant Singh Chaufal and others was incorrectly placed and the court had not understood the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment. The court however said that the petitioner who claimed to be a Journalist, had filed the writ petition "only in respect of construction of one temple at Yashwant Niwas Road".The court while looking into the facts of the case observed that the petitioner claimed to be a journalist and was seeking the removal of one particular temple. In the process, he had impleaded 25 respondents, out of which respondents No. 6 to 25 are the President and Trustees of Manmohan Parshavanath Jain Shwetamber Mandir Evam Guru Mandir Trust.It thereafter said, "If petitioner is aggrieved by illegal construction of religious places, then he ought to have challenged all the religious structures constructed either on government land or without permission". Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Haridas Das v/s Usha Rani Bank (Smt.) & Others (2006) the court said that in the present case, there is no error apparent on the face of the record and the petitioner in fact had "under the guise of review is challenging the order passed by this Court, which is under review". “In the present case the petitioner has not been able to point out any error apparent on the face of the record, on the contrary this Court has decided the case on merits”, it further added.Thus, the court dismissed the present review petition with a cost of Rs. 25,000 to be deposited in the account of the Legal Aid Services Authority, Indore.Case Title: Hemant Malviya Versus The State Of M.P. And Others, Review Petition No. 1081 Of 2024Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 28Click Here To Read/Download Order

'Vested Interest, Should've Challenged All Illegal Religious Structures': MP High Court Dismisses Plea For Removal Of Temple, Imposes 25K Cost

Anukriti Mishra

Tags