A petition has been filed before the Bombay High Court against the levy of Rs 200 for VIP entry at the Trimbakeshwar Temple in Nashik, Maharashtra.
The petition, filed by social worker Lalita Shinde through advocate Rameshwar Gite, states that the temple was declared a protected area and under the Ancient Monument Preservation Act, the temple has also been declared an ancient monument. The petition argues that the levy of Rs 200 discriminates between the rich and the poor.
It further states that various representations were made before the Archaeological Department, which had written to the Collector stating that such collection was in contravention of the Ancient Monument Preservation Act and was illegal. However, the collector did not take any action.
“Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the amount charged is not compulsory for everyone and the people who are in a hurry can pay and go for the darshan… However, the Trust has failed to answer that the persons who are poor even in hurry cannot afford to go and cannot pay an amount of Rs 200 per head and will end up standing in queue waiting for their turn and the people who are rich can pay the amount of Rs 200 and directly go for darshan,” read the petition.
As per the plea, after a long legal dispute, the Supreme Court had ordered the constitution of a nine-member committee to manage the temple.
Referring to economic objectivity and constitutional scheme in a public temple, the petition states: “The constitutional scheme of things does not permit any citizens to believe that economic affordability could be a tool to divide the citizenry for darshan in a public temple. The temple is a public temple and in the first place, the Devasthan is not doing any service. At the best it maintains and administers the temple built for public benefit, for which they receive or raise revenue by other means.”
“The economic consideration — some of the citizens are given the privilege of proximate or speedy darshan and those who can’t afford shall have distant darshan — itself is an affront to equality before law as enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”
The Division Bench of Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice DG Dige asked the petitioner to point out the sections and provision under which the fee charged is prohibited and posted the case for November 30 for further hearing.
“If someone is asking for preference then the extra fee can be charged with necessary arrangements,” the bench opined.
Moreover, it that it was not convinced by the arguments made by the petitioner. “You can do social work in a better way,” the bench said to the petitioner.
Read all the Latest India News here
Comments
0 comment