JUDGMENT

1. Heard Ms. D Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. RP Kakoti, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, IITG as well as Mr. SC Keyal, learned ASGI for the respondent Union of India.

2. The petitioner No.1 Dr. Brijesh Kumar Rai is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Electronics and Electrical Engineering in the Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati (IITG) and the petitioner No.2 Vikrant Singh is a Research Scholar pursuing his Ph.D in the Department of Electronics and Engineering in IITG. Both the petitioners preferred this PIL on being aggrieved by the illegal construction of a temple inside the IITG campus, which was done without any due authority and thereby depriving the resident and non-resident staffs and students of IITG from their fundamental right to live, work and study in a secular environment. It is stated that although the respondent authorities in IITG had denied having undertaken any responsibility for the construction of the temple, but at the same time, they are providing electricity to the temple at the cost of public money.

3. The petitioners submitted representation dated 12.02.2009 before the authorities of the IITG as well as the authorities of the Government of India in the Ministry of Human Resource Development and the Central Vigilance Commissioner that no permission was granted by the IITG for construction of the temple and that some officials of the IITG are behind the illegal construction but inspite of the petitioners having brought it to the notice of the authorities of the IITG, no credible action had been taken to stop such illegal construction. The representation also appears to be a notice of 15 days that on the failure to take action within 15 days, the petitioners would be constrained to initiate legal action against the authorities of the IITG. Photographs have been annexed to the PIL showing that initially the temple comprised a small hut-like structure built around the year 2004/2005, i.e. much after the IITG had started its functioning from its present campus. But, thereafter about four years back, the temple had been refurbished. In the circumstance, the PIL seeks for a direction to the respondent authorities to demolish the illegally constructed temple and also for initiating disciplinary action against such officials of the IITG who were involved in such illegal construction of the temple inside the campus of IITG.

4. The respondent IITG through the Registrar of the Institute filed an affidavit-inopposition. In their affidavit-in-opposition, the credential of the petitioners for having a locus standi in maintaining the present petition had been questioned. A specific stand has been taken that there are representative bodies of the students as well as the faculties and employees of the IITG, namely, the students'' faculties, the faculty forum and officer''s forum respectively. Apart from the aforesaid bodies, IITG has Grievance Redressal Cell as well to take care of any grievance of the public as well as that of the staffs. By saying so a stand is taken that none of the aforesaid bodies, who are representative bodes in the IITG have raised any objection as regards the existence, continuing, construction of the temple concerned. A further stand is taken that the IITG campus has about ten thousand residents who are highly educated and most of them visit the temple concerned and none has ever objected to its existence. By saying so, a stand is taken that the petitioners being two in number had not consulted or taken the consent of the residents of the IITG before filing of the PIL petition. More importantly, a specific stand has been taken that the land for establishing the IITG was acquired during the year 1991 and 1992 and the institute was established in the year 1994. Prior to the land being acquired, it belonged to the local people and some plains tribal people who were the residents of the required land. In paragraph- C, the following stand had been