Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Management Committee Of Thakur Shree … vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 8 August, 2025
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL/APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION(S)(CIVIL) NO.704/2025
MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OF THAKUR SHREE
BANKEY BIHARI JI MAHARAJ TEMPLE & ANR. PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
M.A. Diary No.28487/2025 in C.A. No.6855/2025
M.A. Diary No(s).29320/2025 in C.A. No.6855/2025
W.P.(C) No.709/2025
M.A. Diary No(s).39950/2025 in C.A. No.6855/2025
M.A. Diary No(s).39984/2025 in C.A. No.6855/2025
W.P.(C) No.707/2025
W.P.(C) No.734/2025
W.P(C) No.752/2025
O R D E R
1. Delay condoned.
2. Permission to file miscellaneous applications is granted.
Permission to appear and argue in-person is granted.
3. Applications for impleadment/intervention are allowed.
Cause title be amended accordingly.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ARJUN BISHT
Date: 2025.08.09
18:30:16 IST
Reason:
4. The present batch of Writ Petition(s) and Miscellaneous
Application(s) chiefly pertain to the management and development
1
of the Thakur Shree Bankey Bihari Ji Maharaj Temple at Vrindavan,
Mathura in Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter, “the Temple”). The core
concerns of the petitioners seem to stem from the promulgation of
the Uttar Pradesh Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance,
2025 (hereinafter, “the Ordinance”) which allows the State to
establish a Trust for managing the affairs of the Temple.
5. At the outset, we may briefly advert to the factual
circumstances relevant for the purposes of the present
adjudication. The subject-Temple is admittedly a centuries-old,
world-renowned destination for Hindu devotees and pilgrims in
India, with significant spiritual and cultural import. It is a
matter of record that the Temple was constructed in 1864 on land
gifted by Raja Ratan Singh. Over the following decades,
differences regarding Temple management arose between two
branches of the Temple-administrators, i.e. the Shebait
Goswamis/Gosains (hereinafter, “the Goswamis”). These two groups
are known as the Raj Bhog and the Shayan Bhog.
6. This dispute culminated in Civil Suit No. 156 of 1938 being
filed before the Court of Munsif at Mathura, which, vide its
judgment dated 31.03.1939, framed a ‘Scheme of Management’
(hereinafter, “1939 Scheme”) for the Temple. Notably, under this
Scheme, the Temple Managing Committee was established, comprising
of seven Members who were entrusted with critical
responsibilities related to the Temple’s day-to-day functioning.
Both the Goswami branches elected two Members each, while the
remaining three were nominated by the elected Members themselves.
Importantly, the Munsif/Civil Judge himself played the key role
of settling any disputes between the elected Members regarding
the nominations.
7. Several decades later in June 2016, further differences
arose between the two groups regarding the nomination of the
three Members to be appointed following elections under the
aforementioned Scheme. To resolve the deadlock, Case No. 4822 of
2
2016 was filed before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
(hereinafter, “the High Court”) under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. Vide order dated 27.07.2016, the High
Court directed that, until the issue concerning the management of
the Temple was finally adjudicated, the Munsif/Civil Judge,
Mathura, would continue to oversee the Temple’s affairs either
personally or through a person appointed by him in accordance
with the 1939 Scheme. Thus, in effect, while the day-to-day
functioning remained with the Goswami Shebaits, all final
approvals concerning Temple administration were to be routed
through the Civil Judge, Mathura.
8. In 2022, a most unfortunate tragedy occurred on the Temple
premises, wherein a stampede caused several injuries and two
deaths. Assailing this sorry state of affairs, one Anant Sharma
filed a Public Interest Litigation bearing No. 1509 of 2022
before the High Court inter alia praying for the striking down of
the 1939 Scheme and handing over of Temple Management to the
State of Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter, “the State”).
9. In those proceedings, the State proposed the establishment
of an independent Trust for the management of the Temple, apart
from suggesting certain redevelopment plans that would be
beneficial for the devotees. The Goswamis’ impleadment
applications in this PIL were initially not entertained by the
High Court, noting that their rights were not affected by the
State’s plans, which chiefly related to developing the Temple’s
vicinity. However, they were allowed to assist the Court on the
limited aspect of redevelopment. Ultimately, the High Court vide
order dated 08.11.2023, approved the State’s plans for developing
a ‘Temple Corridor’ by acquiring and developing 5 acres of land
proximate to the Temple, to better ensure public health and
safety. It is worth noting that the High Court did not allow the
State to utilize any funds from the Temple/deity’s account in
furtherance of this exercise, and instead directed that all the
expenses were to be borne by the State exchequer.
3
10. It merits mentioning that the State did not assail the High
Court’s order dated 08.11.2023, which consequently attained
finality.
11. Parallelly, in Ishwar Chanda Sharma v. Devendra Kumar
Sharma & ors., Civil Appeal No. 6855 of 2025 (arising out of
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 29702/2024), a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court was considering a challenge to the proper
administration of the Sri Giriraj Temple at Govardhan, Mathura.
In those proceedings, the Bench enlarged the appeal’s scope and
impleaded the State of Uttar Pradesh with a view to improve the
conditions and facilities of various temples located in the
’Braj’ region of Uttar Pradesh which, inter alia, includes the
subject-Temple.
12. It is in this factual backdrop, that a two-Judge Bench of
this Court therein heard and disposed the appeal, without
impleading the Goswamis. We are not concerned with this Court’s
observations in respect of the Sri Giriraj Temple. However, the
learned two-Judge Bench in the same ruling allowed the State to
utilize the subject-Temple’s funds for acquisition of the
aforementioned 5 acres of land for redevelopment, with the caveat
that the land would be registered in the deity’s name – thereby
essentially modifying the High Court’s directions pertaining to
the exclusive use of State funds in its order dated 08.11.2023.
13. As a result thereof, the present Miscellaneous Applications
have been filed seeking the modification of this Court’s
observations and directions in Ishwar Chanda Sharma (supra), so
far as the same pertain to the use of funds from the subject-
Temple for acquisition of land by the State.
14. Meanwhile, the State of Uttar Pradesh promulgated the
Ordinance, which has been challenged in the connected Writ
Petitions. The Ordinance, as already noted hereinabove, inter
alia contemplates the establishment of a Trust for managing the
affairs of the Temple, and ostensibly overturns the longstanding
4
1939 Scheme.
15. We have heard learned Senior Counsel/Counsel for the
parties, as well learned Additional Solicitor General
representing the State of Uttar Pradesh, and perused the
voluminous record.
16. It seems to us that the order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench
in Ishwar Chanda Sharma (supra) requires certain
modifications/clarifications. That order purportedly directs for
the redevelopment of the subject-Temple’s vicinity through the
employment of Temple funds. However, we find that such directions
suffer from a foundational procedural infirmity: the principal
affected parties, including the Shebait Goswamis, who have been
administering the Temple, were not heard prior to the passing of
said order.
17. It is a matter of record that the administration and
management of the subject-Temple were never a point of
controversy in Ishwar Chanda Sharma (supra). The proceedings
before that Bench arose from a civil dispute entirely unconnected
to the subject-Temple’s governance. As such, to allow substantive
directions on a matter of such significance to be issued in
collateral proceedings, especially in absentia of the necessary
stakeholders, may not be in conformity with procedural fairness
and judicial best-practices.
18. That apart, we note that the High Court, vide its judgment
dated 08.11.2023, had expressly declined the State’s prayer to
utilize Temple funds for land acquisition as part of the proposed
redevelopment plan. That judgment – as noted heretofore – has
attained finality, having never been assailed by the State in any
appropriate appellate proceedings. In these circumstances this
Court could not have, in exercise of its civil appellate
jurisdiction, effectively set aside the High Court’s judgment
without any formal appeal or challenge being placed before it.
5
19. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to modify the order
dated 15.05.2025 passed in Civil Appeal No. 6855 of 2025, and
restore the legal position to status quo ante. The rights and
obligations of the parties shall be governed in terms of the
judgment dated 08.11.2023 of the High Court, and as per the
directions which are being issued issued in the present order.
20. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Application(s) stand
allowed and the following paras from Ishwar Chanda Sharma
(supra), are ordered to be expunged:
“16. It is suffice to say that the buck does not
stop at the issue raised in the present SLP
relating to the eligibility of a receiver for Sri
Giriraj Temple, Govardhan, Mathura. The fact that
the Civil Suit has been pending for over 25 years,
with only receiver’s running the show, goes to show
that the issue of maladministration runs deep and
wide. During the hearings, we have been apprised by
Intervenor/Respondent No. 4 that other temples in
the belt, including the Shri Banke Bihari Temple,
have been facing severe administrative issues of
crowd management and it is being administered by a
civil judge.
17. It pains this Court to take notice of the fact
that the temple was a site of an unfortunate
stampede in 2022, caused due to the lack of
infrastructure that can support the large crowd of
devotees that visit the temple brimming with bhakti
to offer their prayers. We have been apprised of
the fact that the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad is currently seized of Public Interest
Litigation No. 1509 of 2022, which was filed
seeking directions in the aftermath of the
stampede. While the High Court has accepted the
State of Uttar Pradesh’ scheme for the development
of the area around the temple, it has refused to
permit the State to utilize the Temple fund for the
purpose of purchase of the land around the Temple
premises by observing that the said issue is not
yet adjudicated. The order dated 08.11.2013 passed
in PIL No. 1509 of 2022 reads as under:
—xxx— —xxx— —xxx— —xxx— —xxx—
18. In Rajeev Suri v. Delhi Development Authority &
Ors. (2022) 11 SCC 1, or commonly known as the6
‘Central Vista case’, this Court decided a matter
in larger public interest even though a separate
court was seized of the same under Article 142 of
the Constitution. This Court observed:
—xxx— —xxx— —xxx— —xxx— —xxx—
19. As this Court is in sesin of the cause qua the
administration and safety of temples in the Braj
region, it is in public interest to decide the
issue raised by Respondent No. 4/State of Uttar
Pradesh expeditiously in this Court itself.
Respondent No. 4 has placed on record the proposed
scheme for development for the Temple. Upon a
perusal of the same and the consequent assessments,
it has been ascertained that 5 acres of land around
the temple is to be acquired and developed by
constructing parking lots, accommodation for the
devotees, toilets, security check posts and other
amenities. As observed by the High Court vide order
dated 08.11.2023, the acquisition of land around
the temple and the consequent development project
is crucial to ensure the safety of the pilgrims.
20. The State of Uttar Pradesh has undertaken to
incur costs of more than Rs.500 Crores to develop
the corridor. However, they propose to utilise the
Temple funds for purchasing the land in question;
which was denied by the High Court vide order dated
08.11.2023. We permit the State of Uttar Pradesh to
implement the Scheme in its entirety. The Banke
Bihari Ji Trust is having fixed deposits in the
name of the Deity/Temple. In the considered opinion
of this Court, the State Government is permitted to
utilize the amount lying in the fixed deposit to
acquire the land proposed. However, the land
acquired for the purposes of development of the
temple and corridor shall be in the name of the
Deity/Trust. The order dated 08.11.2023 passed by
the High Court of Allahabad in Public Interest
Litigation deserves to be modified to the aforesaid
extent and it is modified accordingly.
—xxx— —xxx— —xxx— —xxx— —xxx—
24. Accordingly, the order dated 08.11.2023 passed
by the High Court of Allahabad in PIL No. 1509 of
2022 is modified to the extent that the State of
Uttar Pradesh/Respondent No. 4 is permitted to
utilise the temple fund in order to purchase the
land around the Temple as per the Scheme proposed,
provided that the land so acquired shall be in the
name of the Deity/Trust…
—xxx— —xxx— —xxx— —xxx— —xxx—”
7
21. Coming now to the constitutional challenge to the subject-
Ordinance, the Petitioners before us have vehemently urged that
the State’s hasty actions in promulgating the same after decades
of complacency represent the very antithesis of good will. It is
also submitted that the State may not be allowed to act in a
circuitous manner, bypassing the High Court’s final order
regarding use of Temple funds.
22. At the very threshold, we see no valid ground to entertain
the challenge directly before us. We say so, finding no
compelling reason for the petitioners to invoke the writ
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution
at this juncture. Instead, in our considered opinion, the
affected persons/petitioners have an equally efficacious remedy
available under Article 226, viz. approaching the High Court.
23. Moreover, the High Court has dealt with the contentious
issue of the Temple’s management on a plethora of previous
occasions. Consequently, we decline to entertain these writ
petitions, which challenge the vires of the Ordinance. Instead,
we deem it appropriate to relegate the affected persons,
including the petitioners, to pursue all their remedies in law
before the High Court.
24. Faced with this, Mr. K.M. Nataraj, learned Additional
Solicitor General of India, representing the State of Uttar
Pradesh, has pointed out that some parallel proceedings under
Article 227 bearing No. 15949/2024 are being heard by a learned
Single Judge of the High Court – which also pertain to the
Ordinance’s constitutionality. In that matter, while an amicus
was initially appointed, most recently the hearings have been
deferred due to the instant proceedings.
25. Mr. Nataraj also points out that vide order dated
21.07.2025, the learned Judge of the High Court has questioned
the very competence of the State to issue the subject-Ordinance.
Some observations made by the learned Judge on 06.08.2025, which
8
have since been extensively reported by the media, have also been
brought to our notice.
26. Consequently, with a view to avoid parallel proceedings, we
stay the operation of the order dated 21.07.2025 passed by the
learned Judge of the High Court in Matters under Article 227 No.
15949/2024. Similarly, further proceedings therein shall also
remain stayed.
27. Ordinarily when the constitutionality of a
Statute/Ordinance is challenged, the matters are heard by a
Division Bench of the High Court. We, therefore, request the
Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court that as and when the writ
petitions questioning the constitutionality of the Ordinance are
filed, the same may be listed before a Division Bench. The matter
under Article 227 No. 15949/2024 shall also thereafter be placed
before the same Bench. However, the interim order(s) issued
hereinabove shall continue to operate till the matter is decided
finally by the High Court.
28. At this stage, we are reminded of the fact that the
petitioners’ challenge to the Ordinance will doubtlessly take
some time in proper adjudication. We, therefore, deem it fit to
stay operation of the Ordinance’s provisions in the interregnum,
only to the extent they grant the State powers to constitute a
Trust for managing the Temple’s affairs.
29. Consequently, the constitution of the Shree Bankey Bihar Ji
Temple Trust, as defined in Section 3 of the Ordinance and its
composition, as contained in Section 5, shall be kept in abeyance
till the question of validity of the Ordinance (or any Act in
relation thereto subsequently passed by the State Legislature),
is finally resolved by the High Court.
30. We may hasten to add that this interim direction shall not
preclude the State from ratification of the Ordinance in the
State Assembly; though, such an exercise shall obviously be
9
subject to outcome of the proceedings for which the affected
persons and the petitioners have been relegated to the High
Court.
31. We are equally mindful that the sum of our directions shall
effectively leave the management of the subject-Temple in limbo
yet again, since the ad-hoc arrangement of Temple-management has
been wholly ineffective and inefficient in discharging its duties
over the years. We are pained to observe that the previous
administerial deadlock(s) and in-fighting have only worsened the
problems plaguing the Temple, causing much distress to the
pilgrims – who are left without any amenities or redress.
32. The material on record indicates that despite the
substantial donations received by the Temple running into
hundreds of crores, no tangible steps appear to have been taken
by the successive managements for providing essential facilities
to the scores of devotees visiting the Temple. We are also
informed that the Goswami Shebaits remain divided into factions
and continue to litigate before the civil courts, further
contributing to administrative inaction.
33. We are, therefore, satisfied that a High-Powered Managing
Committee headed by an impartial person with considerable
experience and ability is required to be constituted to run the
day-to-day affairs of the Temple, apart from undertaking some of
the initiatives, which we are illustratively mentioning in the
latter part of this order. There is no gainsaying that the
sanctity of safe religious pilgrimage shall never be unjustly
denied to all the citizens of this country.
34. We are emboldened in this regard by the fair stand taken by
the State before us, acquiescing to the establishment of a
Committee for the management of the Temple. This Committee may
deal with a variety of issues incidental to the proper
functioning of the Temple, which include, but are not limited to,
the provision of essential amenities such as clean drinking
10
water, functional washrooms, adequate shelter and seating,
dedicated corridors for crowd movement, and special arrangements
for the elderly, women, children, and persons with disabilities.
Effective crowd control, safety protocols, and maintenance of
public order during peak days and festivals are also integral to
the responsible administration of the Temple, which sees
exceptionally high daily footfall. The failure to address these
aspects on an urgent basis not only endangers the safety of the
devotees but also undermines the sanctity of the Temple itself.
35. We accordingly direct the establishment of a High-Powered
Temple Management Committee (hereinafter, “the Committee”) to
oversee and supervise the day-to-day functioning inside and
outside of the Temple, subject to the ultimate outcome of the
proceedings before the High Court. Accordingly, we constitute the
High-Powered Temple Management Committee comprising the following
persons/authorities:
(i) Shri Justice (Retd.) Ashok Kumar, Allahabad High Court;
currently residing at Flat No. B/601, Raj Niwas Residency,
Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh (Mobile No.: +91 94152 36815);
(Chairperson)
(ii) Shri Mukesh Mishra, Retired District & Sessions Judge,
Uttar Pradesh Judiciary; currently residing at House No. 7-
C/260, Sector 7, Awadh Vihar Yojana, Lucknow, Uttar
Pradesh; (Member)
(iii) District & Sessions Jugde, Mathura; (Member)
(iv) Munsif, Mathura/Civil Judge, Mathura; (Member)
(v) District Magistrate, Mathura/Collector, Mathura; (Member-
cum-Member Secretary)
(vi) Senior Superintendent of Police, Mathura; (Member)
(vii) Municipal Commissioner, Mathura; (Member)
11
(viii) Vice Chairman, Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority;
(Member)
(ix) A renowned Architect, to be engaged by the Chairperson;
(Member)
(x) A representative from the Archaeological Survey of India;
(Member)
(xi) 2 Persons each from both the Goswami groups. (Members)
36. As a necessary corollary to the Committee constituted
hereinabove, we also pass the following directions:
i. The Chairperson of the Committee shall be paid Rs. 2 lakhs
per month as honorarium, which shall be borne from the
accounts of the Temple fund. He shall also be provided all
the requisite secretarial assistance, including but not
limited to transportation facilities.
ii. Shri Mukesh Mishra, Member of the Committee, shall be paid
Rs. 1 lakh per month as honorarium, which shall be borne
from the accounts of the Temple fund.
iii. The Committee shall have an office at Mathura, for which the
District Administration is directed to provide a suitable
space forthwith, without any charges.
iv. The Deputy District Commissioner, Mathura; the Special
Superintendent of Police, Mathura; and Principal Secy.,
Dharmarth Karya Vibhag, State of Uttar Pradesh are directed
to meticulously comply with the instructions and
recommendations that may be made by the Chairperson of the
Committee from time to time.
v. The Committee shall make an endeavor to plan the holistic
development of the Temple and its vicinity, for which they
may privately negotiate suitable purchase of the requisite
land. In case no such negotiation fructifies, the State12
Government is directed to proceed with acquisition of the
required land in accordance with law.
vi. It is made clear that besides the 4 Members in the Committee
representing the Goswamis, no other Goswami or sevayat shall
be associated or allowed to interfere or impede in any way
in the managing of the Temple’s critical functions, except
in the practice of conducting puja/sewa and offering prasad
to the deity.
vii. The various petitioners/applicants/intervenors before us who
seem anxious regarding the proper functioning of the Temple
– and have tendered various noteworthy suggestions regarding
the same – are at liberty to move such recommendations
before the Committee, which shall decide the same after due
consideration.
viii. The Chairperson shall be the final authority on all matters
regarding the Committee’s functioning, including but not
limited to its Rules of Procedure, scheduling of meetings,
and other ancillary matters.
37. A set of applicants before us has objected to certain
suggestions put forth for the improvement of Temple-functioning,
inter alia alleging violation of Article 300A or of Articles 48A
and 51AG of the Constitution of India. We see absolutely no merit
in these objections, at this stage, especially when we have
granted liberty to challenge the Ordinance before the High Court.
However, as we want to wholly sidestep any impediment in the
effective functioning of the Committee, we decline to entertain
these objections in toto.
38. As a measure of abundant caution, before parting with these
petitions we reiterate that no opinion is expressed on the merits
of the constitutional challenge to the impugned Ordinance, and
all contentions are left open for the High Court to consider on
their own merits, in accordance with law.
13
39. The High Court is requested to decide the controversy
expeditiously and preferably within one year of the fresh writ
petitions being filed.
40. In the event of any unforeseen impediment or difficulty,
the Committee or the State shall be at liberty to move an
appropriate application before this Court.
…………………J.
(SURYA KANT)
…………………J.
(JOYMALYA BAGCHI)
New Delhi
August 08, 2025
14
ITEM NO.36+37 COURT NO.2 SECTION X
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).704/2025
MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OF THAKUR SHREE
BANKEY BIHARI JI MAHARAJ TEMPLE & ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 174551/2025 – GRANT OF INTERIM RELIEF)
WITH
Diary No(s).28487/2025 (III-A)
(IA No. 132265/2025 – APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION, IA No.175705/2025
– APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION, IA No. 174436/2025 – APPLICATION FOR
PERMISSION, IA No. 137269/2025 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA
No.175479/2025 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA No. 174439/2025 –
EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA No. 175910/2025 –
INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT, IA No.174438/2025 –
INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT, IA No.138791/2025 –
INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT, IA No. 132254/2025 – MODIFICATION, IA
No.176392/2025 – PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON)
Diary No(s).29320/2025 (III-A)
(IA No. 136227/2025 – APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION, IA No.136226/2025
– CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION)
W.P.(C) No.709/2025 (X)
(IA No. 176297/2025 – STAY APPLICATION)
Diary No(s).39950/2025 (III-A)
(IA No. 171914/2025 – APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION, IA No.171918/2025
– CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 175579/2025 – EXEMPTION
FROM FILING PAPER BOOKS, IA No. 175683/2025 –
INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT, IA No. 171911/2025 – MODIFICATION)
Diary No(s).39984/2025 (III-A)
(IA No. 172160/2025 – APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION, IA No.174129/2025
– CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 174132/2025 – EXEMPTION
FROM FILING PAPER BOOKS, IA No. 174618/2025 –
INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT, IA No. 172155/2025 – MODIFICATION)
W.P.(C) No.707/2025 (X)
(IA No. 175803/2025 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA No.175800/2025
– STAY APPLICATION)
W.P.(C) No.734/2025 (X)
(IA No. 182374/2025 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA No.182372/2025
15
– STAY APPLICATION)
Item No.37
Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).752/2025
(IA No. 188783/2025 – STAY APPLICATION)
Date : 08-08-2025 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Shivansh Bharatkumar Pandya , AOR
Mr. Gopal Sankarnararayan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Prabhat Chaurasia, Adv.
Mr. Nitish Raj, Adv.
Mr. Mahek Maheshwari, Adv.
Ms. Smuriti Gangadhar, Adv.
Mr. Jasdeep Singh Dhillon, Adv.
Mr. Anirudh Jamwal, Adv.
Ms. Kenisha Savla, Adv.
M/s MPS Legal, AOR
Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Nikhil Goel, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Tanvi Dubey, AOR
Mr. Malak Bhatt, Adv.
Mr. Yash Dubey, Adv.
Mr. Rongon Choudhury, Adv.
Mr. Shaurya Rai, Adv.
Mr. Mekala Ganesh Kumar Reddy, Adv.
Mr. Vansh Chauhan, Adv.
Ms. Riddhi Jain, Adv.
Mr. Akash Vashishtha, Adv.
Mr. Shubham Upadhyay, AOR
Ms. Anukriti Bajpai, Adv.
Mr. Suhail Dutt, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Azhar Alam, Adv.
Ms. B. Vijayalakshmi Menon, AOR
Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ashutosh Jha, AOR
Ms. Aparajita Jamwal, Adv.
Ms. Saushiraya Havelia, Adv.
Mr. Oleander D Singh, Adv.
Ms. Tanvi Anand, Adv.
Mr. Pranjal Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Shivam Tomar, Adv.
16
Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Pranjal Mishra, Adv.
Ms. Devyani Gupta, AOR
Mr. Avadh Bihar Kaushik, AOR
Mr. Vishnu Dutt Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. KM Nataraj, A.S.G.
Mr. Navin Pahwa, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sharan Dev Singh Thakur, Sr. A.A.G.
Ms. Ruchira Goel, AOR
Ms. Indira Bhakar, Adv.
Ms. Veera Mahuli, Adv.
Mr. Sharanya Sinha, Adv.
Dr. A P Singh, Adv.
Mr. V P Singh, Adv.
Ms. Richa Singh, Adv.
Mr. Nihal Shekhawat, Adv.
Ms. Geeta Chauhan, Adv.
Ms. Pratima Rani, Adv.
Mr. Ashish Singh, Adv.
Mr. Sachin Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Pranav Kumar Srivastva, Adv.
Mr. Sadashiv, AOR
Ms. Shilpi Chowdhary, AOR
Mr. Narendra Kumar Goswami, Adv.
Mr. Amarkant Patel, Adv.
Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Sr. Adv.
Mr. A. Radhakrishnan, AOR
Mr. Shiv Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Vaishnavi, Adv.
Mr. Sujeet Rajan, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Delay condoned.
2. Permission to file miscellaneous applications is granted.
Permission to appear and argue in-person is granted.
3. Applications for impleadment/intervention are allowed. Cause
title be amended accordingly.
4. The Miscellaneous Applications are allowed and Writ Petitions
17
are dismissed in terms of the signed order.
5. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(ARJUN BISHT) (PREETHI T.C.)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(signed order is placed on the file)
18
[ad_1]
Source link