The Allahabad High Court has refused to ban the ongoing puja at Vyas Tehkhana inside the Gyanvapi mosque complex after the completion of the hearing of the appeals challenging the validity of the District Judge’s order granting permission to for the prayers. The Anjuman Intezamia Committee filed the appeal. A Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal-led bench made the decision.
“The Allahabad High Court today read out the operative portion of its order. The operative portion states that the arguments presented by the Muslim side appear weak and the order of the District Judge, appointing a receiver for the district magistrate, and allowing the puja to continue, will be upheld. The court has also dismissed the first appeal form order, Advocate Prabhash Pandey said. “District Magistrate will continue as the receiver of the ‘tehkhana’…This is a big victory for our Sanatana Dharma…They (Muslim side) can go for a review of the decision. Puja will continue,” he said.
Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, representing the Hindu side said “Today, the Allahabad High Court has dismissed the first appeal from orders of Anjuman Intezamia which was directed against the order of 17th and 31st January and the effect of the order is that the ongoing puja in the ‘Vyas Tehkhana’ of Gyanvapi complex will continue. If the Anjuman Intezamia comes to the Supreme Court, we will file our caveat before the SC…” The court was hearing appeals filed by the mosque committee challenging the validity of the district judge’s two orders.
The temple side argued that the court has the inherent power to pass orders in the interest of justice under Sections 151 and 152. They said that the district judge had heard the application three times and that the mosque side had not raised any objections. The court said that the district judge had not granted any new rights and that the order was passed by the legal process.
The court also noted that the Din Mohammad case had mentioned the Vyas basement and that Jitendra Vyas’s right to worship had been accepted. The mosque side argued that granting permission for worship without deciding the right in the civil suit filed for the right to worship was a violation of the legal process. They also said that the district judge had passed two contradictory orders.
