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 followi