[2025:RJ-JP:116-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8058/2011 1. Mandir Shri Hanumanji Maharaj Pandupole Through Munshi Lal Gupta, President Son Of Shri Nawal Kishore Gupta, aged about 56 years, R/o Bariawas, Rajgarh, District Alwar. 2. Shri Ram Shyam Hanuman Swayam Sewak Sangh, Sarafa Bajar, Alwar Through its Secretary, Prakash Sharma, S/o Shri Ishwar Chand Sharma, aged about 38 years, R/o Dhobi Ka Kuan, Ranbhajiyon Ki Gali, Alwar. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Forest Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest, Van Bhawan, Jaipur. 3. Conservator Of Forest, Sariska Tiger Reserve, Sariska, Alwar. 4. Project Director, Sariska Tiger Reserve, Sariska, Alwar. 5. District Collector, Alwar 6. Lokesh Khandelwal Son Of Shri Hazari Lal Khandelwal, Chandraw Bhawan, Lal Gate, Hope Circus, Alwar ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashwini Jaiman with Mr. Keshav Parashar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Vyas, AAG assisted by Ms. Aditi Vats HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Order 02/01/2025 1. Heard. 2. Learned counsels for the parties jointly submit that in view of recent order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 11.12.2024 [2025:RJ-JP:116-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-8058/2011] containing directions with regard to management of Pandupole Hanuman Temple, the purpose of filing the present petition has been served. 3. In the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it has been observed and directed as below:- “9. The trust which manages the Pandupole Hanuman Mandir and the devotees have also raised some grievance with regard to Recommendation No. I, which reads as under: "I. All private vehicles plying to Pandupole Hanuma Temple from all the three existing gates should be stopped and Electric Shuttle Buses should be put in place for the pilgrims and other visitors by the State Government latest by 31.03.2025. This needs to be followed by exploring the other options discussed in para 44 like tram way/elevated road/motorable twin tunnel/rope way & sky walk on the basis of appropriate feasibility studies and alignments, the decision on which can be taken by State Government, in consultation with NTCA within a period of next one-year." 10. It is not in dispute that while protecting the Tiger Reserve as well as the Sanctuary, the sentiments of the devotees, who visit the temple, should also be given due consideration. It is the concern of the Trust and the devotees that immediate stopping of private vehicles would deprive the thousands of devotees who come on Tuesdays and Saturdays from visiting the temple. 11. It is also their concern that there is a belief among the devotees that they should offer a prasad on fulfillment of their prayers. The grievances have also been raised with regard to Recommendation Nos. XV and XVI which banned the preparation/cooking of sawamani/bhandara in the temple premises and any kind of food items at the shop run by the temple trust in the temple premises, with immediate effect. They read as under: "XV. Preparation/cooking of sawamani/bhandara in the Pandupole Hanuman Mandir premises should be strictly banned with immediate effect. The practice of pilgrims bringing bhog/prasad [2025:RJ-JP:116-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-8058/2011] with them, prepared outside the tiger reserve to the Hanuman temple can be allowed. XVI. Preparation/cooking of any kind of food items at the shop run by the temple trust in the temple premises should be banned with immediate effect. Sale of prepared bhog/prasad brought from outside the Tiger Reserve can be allowed." 12. We, therefore, find it appropriate that before implementing Recommendation Nos. (I), (XII), (XV) and (XVI), the Committee consisting of following Members should be appointed which can address these concerns and find out solutions in a phased manner: (i) The Collector, Sarisksa; (ii) The Field Director, Sariksa Tiger Reserve; and (iii) A Member of the CEC. 13. The said Committee shall give a hearing also to the representative of the Trust and arrive at a solution in a balanced and phased manner so that the interest of the Tiger Reserve as well as the concerns of the devotees are given due consideration. 14. The deadline given in the Recommendations of the report of the CEC would not be practical inasmuch insofar as same aspects are concerned as the outer dates are already over. 15. We, therefore, extend the period as provided in the guidelines by one year from today. 16. We place on record our appreciation for the State of Rajasthan for acting in a proactive manner.” 4. In view of the above and taking into consideration the relief sought by the present petitioners, we are not inclined to proceed further in the matter. 5. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of. (UMA SHANKER VYAS),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ SANJAY KUMAWAT/RAJAT/40