Allahabad High Court: In a writ petition filed by the pujari of the Buddheshwar Mahadev Temple (‘the Temple’) seeking opening of the locks of the Sita Rasoi and Kanwar Bhawan of the Temple, the Division Bench of Sangeeta Chandra and Brij Raj Singh, JJ., stated that since the Temple was ancient, the Secretary of the Department of Religious Affairs (‘the Secretary’) may look into the affairs of the Temple and propose a scheme of administration.
Background
The Temple Pujari contended that he was the person performing the functions and duties of a pujari, residing in the Pujari’s room for more than 25 years, and belonged to a family that had been serving at the Temple for several decades. The Pujari further contended that after the murder of the then Pujari in 1999-2000, the District Administration (‘DA’) took over the Temple and appointed the Sub Divisional Magistrate (‘SDM’) as a Custodian.
Thereafter, the Pujari and other administration made repeated representations to the respondent authorities for the provision of adequate security arrangements in the Temple and its maintenance and repairs. However, when no heed was paid, they approached the Court via a writ petition. The Court directed the DA to consider the Temple Administration, and accordingly, security arrangements were made.
The Pujari further contended that later on, the Sita Rasoi and Kanwar Bhawan were illegally locked by the present SDM in 2024. Aggrieved, the Temple Administration again approached the Court, but the writ petition was disposed of while observing that the Standing Counsel had placed the instructions that no locks had been placed by the DA and no Committee had been constituted for the Temple Administration. Allegedly, the new SDM again forcibly locked Sita Rasoi and Kanwar Bhawan in July 2025, which obstructed the various religious/social functions in the Temple. Hence, the present writ petition.
The State informed the Court that the Pujari was a 35-year-old man who was posing as a pujari, as he had never been in charge of any pooja at the Temple and could not have become the pujari at age 10. The State contended that he had filed the petition to take over the management of the Temple.
The State further informed that Sita Rasoi was a place where utensils and other materials were kept, and in case any devotee wanted a ‘bhandara’ to be arranged in the Temple premises, the said place was used. The Area Lekhpal was in charge and had the keys to the Sita Rasoi. On the other hand, the Kanwar Bhawan had been constructed by the Tourism Department, where the Kanwar Yatra devotees were allowed to stay, but these premises were being misused by the Temple Administration and others for several nefarious activities. Therefore, a lock was placed on the said premises.
Analysis
The Court stated that since there were specific instructions that the Temple had not been locked, there was no question of obstruction to religious functions/rituals being performed at the Temple.
However, without going into the allegations regarding the present SDM to take over the management of the Temple, the Court stated that since the Temple was ancient, the Secretary may look into the affairs of the Temple and propose a scheme of administration. Accordingly, the Court directed the Temple Administration to implead the Secretary.
The Court further directed that by the next date, the Secretary may submit a proposal regarding the administration of the Temple to be given to the Government officials/members of the public, who had faith in Lord Mahadev and wanted to do some public service. The SDM shall submit a report to the DM, who shall inform the Secretary of the need to frame a scheme of administration for proper management of the Temple.
The matter was listed for 23-09-2025.
[Buddheshwar Mahadev (Deity) v. State of U.P., WRIT – C No. 8519 of 2025, decided on 04-09-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Piyush Asthana
For the respondent: C.S.C.
