ORDER

1. The order made hy a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on 18th of August, 1988 in a writ petition, is challenged before this Court in this application for Special Leave. By our order dated 30th of August, 1988. we have transferred that writ petition to this Court for disposal along with connected matters, and the record of the writ petition has already been received in this Court and has been made available by the Registry to us today. Now that the original proceeding is before us and the application for special leave against an interlocutory order is ordinarily not entertained, we do not propose to entertain the special leave petition. We shall treat the leave application as one for modification of the order of the High Court dated August 18, 1988.

2. We have heard learned counsel, Dr.Chitale, in support of the application for modification of the order and Mr. A.K. Sen and Dr. L.M. Singhvi in support of ihe stand taken by the other side.

3. The petitioners have maintained that the Shree Rani Satiji Mandir at Jhunjhunu in the State of Rajasthan is not an institution to which the Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act, 3 of 1988 has application; offering puja within the temple does not constitute glorification of Statas defined in the Act, and, therefore, the District Magistrate whose order of 1st August, 1988, is impugned in the writ proceedings was not entitled to exercise powers under the Act to prohibit religious rites within the temple. Dr. Chitale does not accept this position and contends that the puja offered within the temple amounts to glorification of Sati and is an offence.

4. One fact which is not in dispute is that the temple has been in existence for centuries whether four or seven is not very material - and from the affidavit made by the Assistant Collector which has heen filed in this Court yesterday, we find that regular puja is performed five times a day in this temple. Apart from what is disputed to be an image of Sati, there are images of lord Shiva, Hanumanji and other deities within the temple whom Hindu tradition accepts to be Gods. It is not for us at this stage to take a final view one way or the other; yet, there is a prima facie case for examination and it cannot be said that the petitionersclaim is such that it can be rejected at the threshold. It would be difficult to rule out the contention of the petitioners until the matter is adjudicated and a final decision is reached. Petitioners have alleged interference with their rights and apprehend that criminal prosecution may be launched against them. We direct that for the puja offered within the temple no prosecution be started as against those who offer puja until the matter is finally disposed of and the correctness or otherwise of the plea taken by the petitioners is finally examined in the writ petition.

5. We are told that on the Bhadra Amawasya which would fall on the 10th of September year an annual Mela is due near the ten Offering of puja aside the temple and holding a Mela outside are certainly two different as and the Mela may give rise to problems of law order. In the matter of holding of a mela, funda mental right may or may not be involved. In the circumstances, as in interim measure and per adjudication of the dispute before this Court direct that no mela shall be held either on the of September or at any time until further or We would like to add that even counsel for petitioners are prepared to maintain a distinet between the offering of puja within the temple holding of the mela outside.

6. Since there is apprehension of disturbance of law and order the State Authorities are from regulate the gathering of people around temple even for offering of puja but those intend to offer puja within the temple may physically obstructed and no impediments than for regulating may be placed by the rate Government and its officers in the matter offering puja within the temple.

7. Dr. Chitale iias told us in response to request made by Dr. Si