HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1079 of 2025 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J. 1. Vakalatnama filed today by Shri Umesh Singh, Advocate on behalf of opposite party no. 3 is taken on record. 2. Heard. 3. By means of this petition which has been filed as a Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner claiming herself to be devotee of the idol placed at Baba Jagmohaneshwar Shiva Temple seeks the following reliefs:- "a. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the State Authorities (Respondents No. 1-3) restraining the proposed construction or any commercial activity within the premises of the Baba Jagmohneshwar Shiva Temple and its appurtenant land, and direct the State authorities to protect, preserve, and safeguard the temple's religious sanctity, cultural and historical heritage, and the public rights of the devotees, thereby upholding the doctrine of public trust; b. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding and directing the State authorities, particularly Opposite Party No.4-7, to ensure that no construction, encroachment, or commercial activity takes place within the temple premises, its appurtenant land, or areas customarily used by devotees, in accordance with the constitutional mandate under Articles 25, 49, and 51A(f) and relevant Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Agendra Sinha, Rakesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Smt. Meena Kumari .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Lko. And 7 Others .....Respondent(s) statutory provisions; c. Appoint an Expert Committee or Heritage Commission to inspect, document, and recommend measures for preservation of the temple and its surroundings as a religious and heritage site;" 4. Admittedly, the temple in question is a private temple. The contention of the petitioner’s counsel was that it was an ancient monument which needs to be protected. 5. However, we do not find any such document referable to the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological and Remains Act, 1958 wherein the said temple may have been declared as a protected monument under the said Act. 6. Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides the remedies in such matters as far as it may be permissible for the petitioner. 7. Such matters pertaining to a private temple cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. The petitioner may, if there is a cause or if he has locus standi, avail other remedies, especially as the allegations in the writ petition are against private persons who are arrayed as opposite party nos. 4 to 7 and are alleged to be undertaking some construction within the temple campus, whereas, Shri Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned C.S.C. says that the land in question is recorded in the name of private persons. we cannot enter into such disputes between private parties, that too, pertaining to a private land. 9. If there is a cause or if the petitioner has locus standi, he may approach WPIL No. 1079 of 2025 2 the Archaeological Survey of India provided it has jurisdiction in the matter. It is always open to the petitioner to do so. 10. It is made clear that we have not at all entered into the merits of the issues raised by the petitioner. 11. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the petition is disposed of. October 15, 2025 Shravan WPIL No. 1079 of 2025 3 (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench