New Delhi -°C
Today in New Delhi, India

Nov 29, 2020-Sunday



Select Country
Select city
Home / Delhi News / Delhi high court dismisses plea seeking stay on demolition of temple in Chandni Chowk

Delhi high court dismisses plea seeking stay on demolition of temple in Chandni Chowk

delhi Updated: Nov 20, 2020, 23:04 IST
Richa Banka
Richa Banka

New Delhi:

The Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed an application moved by a registered religious society, seeking a stay on demolition of a Hanuman Temple in Chandni Chowk.

The HC said the same issues have already been re-agitated, considered and rejected earlier last year and that the plea for interference had to come from the state government.

The organisation represented by advocate Rushab Aggarwal had said the single judge could not have rejected the decision of the Lieutenant-Governor (LG) of Delhi, who as chairperson of the religious committee had recommended for the temple to be amalgamated and saved as part of the Shahjahanabad Redevelopment Plan.

He said devotees had a fundamental right to practice their faith and that the temple was an integral facet of the faith. The trust said they were aggrieved by an order dated October 31 of the North MCD, proposing to demolish the temple, which according to them would be done on Sunday.

On Friday, a bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Subramonium Prasad said it was for the Delhi Government to make an application for modification because the Supreme Court had asked them to approached the high Court.

On November 14, 2019, the Delhi High Court had rejected recommendations of the religious committee to allow the temple to exist at the site.

The order was challenged by the Delhi government in Supreme Court, which disposed it of after the government said it would move “a suitable application before the high court for further directions, as may be warranted”.

The court said once such a liberty was granted to the Delhi government, and that because the government had not approached the high court, there was no reason to entertain that application for intervention “which is nothing but an attempt to re-agitate the same issue that has been considered and rejected by an earlier order dated 14.11.2019”.

ht epaper

Sign In to continue reading