Electricity Act 2003 | Section 56(2) Does Not Preclude Licensee From Raising Supplementary Demand After Two Years; Only Restricts Right To Disconnect: Supreme Court Dissolution Of Partnership At Will | Outgoing Partner Entitled To Market Value Of Assets As On Date Of Distribution, Not Date Of Dissolution: Supreme Court SEBI | Release Of Escrow Under Buyback Regulations Does Not Preclude Independent Inquiry Into Fraud Under PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Promotion Based On Merit Does Not Wipe Out Past Adverse Records But Must Be Balanced In FR 56(j) Compulsory Retirement: Supreme Court Appellate Court Can Convict For Offence Even If Charge Not Framed By Trial Court Under Section 464 CrPC: Supreme Court Extradition | Sovereign Assurance Does Not Override Judicial Sentencing; Cannot Be Used To Artificially Accelerate Sentence Completion: Supreme Court Article 21 | State Has A Positive Duty To Protect Public Health By Implementing Front-Of-Package Labelling Regulations: Supreme Court Revenue Entries Are Not Documents Of Title, Cannot Replace Substantive Evidence In Property Disputes: Supreme Court Long Possession Without Hostile Animus Does Not Amount To Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Administrative Discretion Must Comply With Article 14; Subsequent Executive Decisions Cannot Retroactively Cure Failure Of Timely Performance: Supreme Court Municipal Corporation Cannot Unilaterally Downgrade Market Value Of Land Acquired For Road Widening To Deny TDR Certificates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Execution Of Agreement To Sell Does Not Automatically Terminate Existing Tenancy: Allahabad High Court Writ Jurisdiction Not Maintainable When Title To Property Is Under A Cloud And Subject Matter Of Disputed Facts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Amendment Of Plaint Seeking Impleadment Of Third Parties And Addition Of Time-Barred Claims In A Partition Suit Cannot Be Permitted: Bombay High Court Reassessment Order Does Not Result In Merger Of Original Assessment Order If Issues Are Distinct: Andhra Pradesh High Court GST Assessment Order Uploaded Only Under 'Additional Notices' Tab Without Separate Intimation Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Calcutta High Court 'Prolonged Inaction' Cannot Be Rewarded: Delhi High Court Upholds CESTAT Refusal To Condone 968-Day Delay In Filing Customs Appeal Probate No Longer Mandatory To Establish Rights Under A Will Following 2025 Amendment To Indian Succession Act: J&K High Court Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used To Introduce New Factual Foundations Or Reopen Concluded Arbitral Awards: Karnataka High Court High Court Cannot Invoke Article 227 To Strike Off Plaint When Statutory Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Is Available: Madras High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Arrest And Subsequent Remand: Orissa High Court Arbitrator Is The Sole Judge Of Quality And Quantity Of Evidence, Court Cannot Act As Court Of Appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 5 Limitation Act | Court Cannot Condone Delay In A Mechanical Manner Without Ascertaining Bona Fides Of The Applicant: Calcutta High Court High Court Cannot Quash FIR Under Section 482 CrPC By Conducting Mini-Trial On Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court Taxation Law | Mere Assertion Of Natural Justice Violation On Disputed Facts Won't Bypass Statutory Appeal: Delhi High Court

Redevelopment of Shri Kalkaji Mandir Essential for Devotee Welfare: Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark decision, the Delhi High Court has upheld the necessity of the redevelopment and management of the Shri Kalkaji Mandir complex, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the temple's dignity and ensuring the welfare of devotees. Justice Prathiba M. Singh presided over the case, which has been a subject of discussion and legal proceedings for several years.

In her ruling, Justice Singh observed, "The redevelopment of such a significant temple, where lakhs of devotees visit every year, is essential not only for providing better facilities but also for preserving the temple's sanctity." The judgment came as a response to various issues raised concerning women's rights, mismanagement, cleanliness, commercialization, and lack of civic amenities at the temple.

The court has appointed an Administrator for the overall management and administration of the temple and a renowned architect, Mr. Goonmeet Singh Chauhan, for overseeing the redevelopment plans. The court's decision involves the eviction of unauthorized occupants, the preparation of a master plan, and the establishment of a redevelopment fund.

The judgment also addressed objections raised by Mahant Surender Nath, stating that the objections were baseless and did not impede the temple's redevelopment. Justice Singh emphasized, "One individual cannot stall the redevelopment of such a big Mandir, especially when the amenities and facilities for devotees were in a really appalling condition."

The Supreme Court had previously clarified the importance of maintaining the temple and its surroundings in a dignified manner, in the interest of devotees. The High Court's decision aligns with these directives, reinforcing the temple's redevelopment's importance for public welfare.

The final redevelopment plan, which includes preserving existing trees and coordinating with various civic bodies for necessary approvals, has been approved by the court. The next hearing is scheduled for January 12, 2024, to review progress and further steps.

Date of Decision: 22nd December, 2023

NEETA BHARDWAJ & ORS. VS KAMLESH SHARMA   

 

Latest Legal News