JUDGMENT :

SUBHASH VIDYARTHI J.

1. Heard Sri Asok Pande, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Vinod Kumar Shahi, the learned Additional Advocate General of U.P. and Sri Abhinav Narayan Trivedi, the learned Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3, Sri Surya Mani Singh Royekwar, the learned Counsel for the Union of India and Archaeological Survey of India, respondent nos. 1 and 4, who has filed his memo of appearance.

2. The instant petition, which has been styled as a Public Interest Litigation, has been filed by 7 persons praying that a direction be issued “to appoint a Committee / Commission headed by a Judge of the High Court or Supreme Court (sitting or retired) to study the nature of structure found in the Gyan Vapi Campus to ascertain as to whether it is Shivlinga, as being claimed by the Hindus or it is a fountain as being claimed by few of the Muslims and to direct the concerned respondents to act accordingly to such report means if it is a Shivlinga then permit the devotees to pray it as per rituals and if it is found fountain then make it functional”.

3. At the outset, Sri Abhinav Narayan Trivedi, the learned Chief Standing Counsel has raised the following preliminary objections against maintainability of the Writ Petition:-

(i). Several Suits are pending in the Civil Court at Varanasi regarding the structures existing in Gyanvapi Parisar, Varanasi and, therefore, this Writ Petition concerning the same subject matter should not be entertained by this Court.

(ii). As per the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9388 of 2022, the suits filed at Varanasi concerning the controversy relating to Gyan Vapi Compound which were pending in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Varanasi, have been transferred to the Court of District Judge, Varanasi. The aforesaid Special Leave Petition is still pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it is fixed for 21.07.2022 and, therefore, it would not be proper for this Court to entertain a petition while the dispute is pending in the form of various civil suits before the District Judge, Varanasi and it is also engaging the attention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid pending Special Leave Petition.

(iii). The subject matter of the writ petition is Gyan Vapi Campus situated at Varanasi and it falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court sitting at Allahabad. Therefore, this Court sitting at Lucknow has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this petition and the petition is liable to be dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction.

(iv). The learned State Counsel has vehemently opposed the petition and has submitted that the writ petition does not disclose the credentials of the petitioners and the only thing pleaded in this regard is that the petitioners are the followers of Sanatan Dharma. The petition which has allegedly been filed in Public Interest, is not maintainable, unless the petitioners disclose their credentials so as to establish that they have actually approached this Court in public interest only. Placing reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ardhendu Kumar Das Versus State of Odisha and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 718, the learned State Counsel has submitted that the writ petition filed purportedly in public interest is actually designed to obtain publicity only and, therefore, it is liable to be dismissed at the threshold.

4. When the Court called upon the learned counsel for the petitioners to give a reply to the preliminary objections raised by the learned State Counsel, he categorically stated that he is not bound to reply to each and every submission made by the learned State Counsel. However, when this Court put a question to the learned counsel for the petitioners as to how a Writ Petition can be entertained by this Court in respect of the subject matter which is already the subject matter of suits filed before the Civil Court at Varanasi, th