SHRI. TULJABHAVANI TEMPLE TRUST THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN / COLLECTOR, TULJAPUR v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
APPLN/3486/2024 · 2025-01-23
Shri Mangesh S Patil, Shri Shailesh P Brahme
Public Interest Litigationbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 25677 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 25677 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
915 Cri. Appln. No. 3486 OF 2024.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3486 OF 2024 IN CRIMINAL PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 5 OF 2022 SHRI. TULJABHAVANI TEMPLE TRUST THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN / COLLECTOR, TULJAPUR VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS … Advocate for Applicant : Mr. V. D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. Laxmikant C. Patil APP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 : Mr. M. M. Nerlikar Advocate for Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Suresh M. Kulkarni a/w. Mr. Umesh Bhadgaonkar … CORAM :
MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ. DATE : 23.01.2025 PER COURT : . We have heard both sides.
2. By way of this application, original respondent No. 6 in Criminal PIL No. 5 of 2022 which is a ‘Devsthan Trust’, is seeking modification of the order passed by this Court while the PIL was still pending, thereby restricting the government decision whereby it had permitted melting of all the offerings in the form of gold and silver ornaments to the deity for a period from 01.01.2009 upto 2023, directing that operation of that decision would be restricted to the offerings received from 01.01.2010 till 10.06.2023. 1/2 2025:BHC-AUG:2116-DB
915 Cri. Appln. No. 3486 OF 2024.odt
3. The order sought to be reviewed, was an interim order coupled with the fact that the Criminal PIL was finally disposed of by the subsequent judgment and order dated 09.05.2024, issuing directions for registration of crime based on couple of enquiry reports, is a subject matter of challenge by the State before the Supreme Court.
4. In our considered view, when the substantive challenge to the final order is before the Supreme Court, it would be a matter of impropriety in indulging in modification of any interim order passed in the Criminal PIL.
5. The Criminal Application is rejected.
( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. ) ( MANGESH S. PATIL, J. ) jhs/ 2/2