Allahabad HC Rejects Masjid Committee's Plea To Defer Hearing In ‘Gyanvapi Title Dispute’ Cases, Matters To Be Heard On October 4

The application, filed on September 18, prayed that the hearing in the cases be not conducted till the identify the applicant, on whose application, the Chief Justice passed an administrative order (on August 11) to withdraw the title dispute cases from the single judge, is disclosed and it is verified whether such person is an advocate for the opposite parties/plaintiff.

Rejecting the application, the bench of Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker noted that the identity of the applicant, who highlighted the procedural impropriety in the hearing of the writ petitions before the Single Judge was not material and that Anjuman’s application on the judicial side, praying to defer the hearing in the matters was “wholly uncalled for”.

“Which party invited the attention of the Chief Justice to procedural impropriety in the conduct of the hearing or who moved the application are of little significance…Now when correct facts are noticed and necessary orders have been obtained from the Chief Justice, on the administrative side, which is specified in the previous order of the Court dated 28.08.2023, there is no occasion for this Court not to proceed with the hearing of the cases,” the Court remarked in its order.

For the uninitiated, on August 11, the Chief Justice passed an order on the administrative side withdrawing the Gyanvapi title dispute cases from the bench of Justice Prakash Padia "in the interest of judicial propriety and judicial discipline as well as the transparency in the listing of cases". Later, the matters were assigned to the bench of Chief Justice.

This development had come shortly after Justice Padia’s bench, which had been hearing the matter since August 2021, concluded the hearing and reserved the orders in the cases on July 25.

The reason behind such a decision was disclosed in the Chief Justice’s order dated August 28, wherein it was reasoned that non-observance of the procedure in listing the cases, passing of successive orders for reserving the judgment and again listing the cases before the Judge (Justice Prakash Padia) for hearing through he no longer had the jurisdiction as per the master of the roster, had led to the withdrawal of the cases.

In his 12-page order, the Chief Justice had stated that essentially his order on the administrative side emanated from a complaint which was made before him on July 27, 2023, by a counsel of one of the parties to the proceedings, highlighting the fact that hearing in the dispute cases was proceeding in derogation of the procedure laid down in law for listing of the cases as per the rules.

To understand the chronology of the circumstances which led to the withdrawal of cases from the single Judge (Justice Prakash Padia), please refer to this report: Gyanvapi-Kashi Title Dispute | 'Procedural Aberration, Jurisdictional Impropriety': Allahabad HC CJ Specifies Reasons For Withdrawing Cases From Single-Judge

Importantly, on August 28, when the matters came up for hearing before the CJ bench, the Masjid committee raised an objection that the cases ought not to have been withdrawn from the bench of Justice Prakash Padia, on the administrative side, by the Chief Justice, for being heard all over again.

Pursuant to this, it filed a formal application seeking disclosure of the identity of the applicant on whose application the cases were transferred.

Noting that it is otherwise open for any party to apply for inspection of records of the writ proceedings and ascertain the identity of the applicant who filed the application in question.

The Court added that the limited purpose served by the application in question was that the procedural impropriety arising in the proceedings got highlighted before the Chief Justice, on the administrative side, pursuant to which, mandatory procedures for hearing of writ as per the Rules of the Court were complied with.

Against this backdrop, the Court dismissed Anjuman Masjid’s plea and posted the matters for hearing on October 4.

Appearances

Counsel for Petitioner: S.F.A. Naqvi, Senior Advocate, Puneet Kumar Gupta, Syed Ahmed Faizan

Counsel for Respondent: Ajay Kumar Singh, Vijai Shankar Rastogi, Sunil Rastogi, Tejas Singh, M.C. Chaturvedi, learned AAG, Kunal Ravi Singh, CSC, Vijay Shanker Mishra, CSC-VI, Hare Ram Tripathi, SC, Sri Ankit Gaur, SC, Vineet Sankalp, SC, Shashi Prakash Singh, ASGI, Manoj Kumar Singh, Ved Mani Tiwari and Sudarshan Singh learned CGCs

Case title – Anjuman Intazamia Masazid Varanasi vs. Ist A.D.J. Varanasi And Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 349 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3341 of 2017]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 349

Click Here To Read/Download Order