Rajasthan High Court Directs Authorities To Consider Representation Against Alleged Illegal Religious Conversions In Ganganagar City
The Rajasthan High Court has refused to hear a public interest litigation against alleged illegal religious conversions and erection of unauthorized religious structures in the Ganganagr city, stating that it cannot decide disputed questions of facts in writ jurisdiction.The Bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani however granted liberty to the Petitioners to raise...
The Rajasthan High Court has refused to hear a public interest litigation against alleged illegal religious conversions and erection of unauthorized religious structures in the Ganganagr city, stating that it cannot decide disputed questions of facts in writ jurisdiction.
The Bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani however granted liberty to the Petitioners to raise their grievance before the competent authorities. It said,
"It is expected that such representation shall be considered objectively and decided as per law by a reasoned order within a period of three months from the date of submission thereof."
The PIL was filed by one Pratap Singh Shekhawat, alleging that the private Respondents (belonging to Christian faith), including Rajasthan Christian Council, are indulging in illegal religious conversion of citizens of Ganganagar. It was also alleged that illegal construction of religious place is being raised on agricultural land in violation of the Rajasthan Religious Building and Places Act 1954.
In this regard, the petitioner placed on record certain photographs in an attempt to establish that these lands are recorded as irrigated agricultural lands in the Jamabandi, but construction of religious place is being raised thereupon.
The Court however noted that the photographs give no indication whatsoever that the building for religious purposes is being raised thereupon.
"We are of the firm view that the writ petition has been filed with very vague assertions and involves seriously disputed questions of facts. Hence, the petitioner is given liberty to submit a representation to the competent authority alongwith a copy of this order for ventilating his grievances," the Court ordered.
Advocate Moti Singh appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
Case Title: Pratap Singh Shekhawat v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 115