NEETA BHARDWAJ & ORS. vs KAMLESH SHARMA

$~ 1(SB) to 4(SB), 23 to 32, 36 to 54
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 12th March, 2024

+ FAO 36/2021, CM APPLs. 57032/2023 & 57033/2023 CM APPLs.2914/2021, 10442/2021, 10444/2021, 20904/2021, 23819/2021, 25868/2021, 25869/2021, 25870/2021, 25884/2021, 25885/2021, 26495/2021, 29121/2021, 38063/2021, 38289/2021, 39643/2021, 43944-46/2021, 3172/2022, 3455/2022, 5641/2022, 5642/2022, 5803/2022, 5865/2022, 7745/2022, 13472/2022, 16153/2022, 17039/2022, 18207/2022, 18247/2022, 18248/2022, 21768/2022, 21801/2022, 21802/2022, 21803/2022, 22125/2022, 23093/2022, 29624/2022, 32296/2022, 34552/2022, 34553/2022, 39754-55/2022, 40548/2022, 43723/2022, 53179/2022, 876/2023, 14509/2023, 15812/2023, 15813/2023 13658/2023, 22230/2023, 25196/2023, 27387/2023, 28558/2023, 28559/2023, 29981/2023, 31169/2023, 40347-49/2023, 41312-13/2023, 52644-46/2023, 61839/2023, 63979/2023
NEETA BHARDWAJ & ORS. ….. Appellants
Through:
versus
KAMLESH SHARMA ….. Respondent
Through:
+ CM (M) 323/2021, CM APPLs.14178/2021, 20945/2021, 20949/2021 & 40269/2021
+ CONT.CAS(C) 614/2021  
+ RFA 413/2021
+ CS(OS) 518/2021
+ CS(OS) 520/2021
+ CS(OS) 521/2021
+ CS(OS) 524/2021
+ CS(OS) 546/2021
+ CS(OS) 552/2021, I.As. 16148/2021 & 16149/2021
+ CS(OS) 557/2021
+ CS(OS) 559/2021
+ CS(OS) 56/2022 & I.A. 12340/2022
+ CS(OS) 57/2022
+ CS (OS) 2499/2010
+ CS (OS) 511/2021
+ CS (OS) 526/2021 & I.A.7511/2022
+ CS (OS) 527/2021, I.As.1717/2022 & 1718/2022
+ CS (OS) 533/2021, I.As. 1721/2022 & 1722/2022
+ CS (OS) 535/2021 & I.A. 7552/2022
+ CS (OS) 538/2021, I.As. 1725/2022 & 1726/2022
+ CS (OS) 539/2021, I.As. 9063/2022 & 9064/2022
+ CS (OS) 540/2021 & I.A. 7940/2022
+ CS (OS) 541/2021, I.As. 1723/2022 & 1724/2022
+ CS (OS) 542/2021, I.As. 9031/2022 & 9032/2022
+ CS (OS) 544/2021, I.As. 1719/2022 & 1720/2022
+ CS (OS) 545/2021
+ CS (OS) 547/2021, I.As.1715-16/2022
+ CS (OS) 554/2021, I.As. 9061/2022 & 9062/2022
+ CS (OS) 579/2021, I.As. 9981/2022 & 9982/2022
+ CS (OS) 55/2022, CCP(O) 91/2023, I.As. 12299/2022, 12300/2022, 12341/2022, 12342/2022, 19288/2022 & 24076/2023
+ CS (OS) 240/2023
+ CS (OS) 284/2023, I.As.10300-04/2023
 
Appearances:
Mr. Arun Birbal & Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advocates for DDA. (M: 9810029802)
Mr. R. K. Bhardwaj & Mr. Dheeraj Bhardwaj, Advs.
Mr. Neeraj Bhardwaj & Mr. Rahul Bhardwaj, Advs. (M- 9350271061)
Mr. Lokesh Bhardwaj, Advocate.(M- 9971576388)
Ms. Samapika Biswal, Ms. Nidhisha Garg and Mr. Aman Kumar Yadav, Advocates (M: 9406951592).
Mr Anuj Chaturvedi & Mrs Shreya Manjari Advs. (M: 9431643312).
Mr. Rishabh Kapur, Adv. (M: 7042181838)
Mr. Kush Bhardwaj, Adv. (M:9891074686)
Mr. Anjani Kumar Mishra, Mr. Praveen Mishra, Mr. Hardeep Kaur Mishra, Advs.
Mr. Tanay Hari Lal, Advocate.
Ms. Himanshi Kaushik, Architect.
Mr. Sarvesh Bhardwaj, Advocate.
Mr. Lakshay Bhardwaj, Mr. Kamal Kumar, Mr. Aashish Bhardwaj & Mr. Satish Pandey, Advocates.
Mr. Ramesh Kumar Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Kaoliangpou Kamei & Mr. Paul Kumar Kalai, Advs.
Mr. Siddharth Panda and Mr. Venkateshan, Advocates for MCD.
Mr. Vishal Bhardwaj, Advocate
Mr. Rishabh Kapur, Adv.
Mr. Rajmangal Kumar, Adv. for Shopkeepers.
Mr. Shambhu Nath Pal, Asst. Commissioner of MCD in person.
Mr. Kartik Sharma, Mr. Rishabh Srivastava, Advs. for Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi SC Civil GNCTD.
Mr. Siddharth Panda, Adv. for MCD.
Mr. Manan Soni, Adv. for Applicants in CM NO 61839 OF 2023.
Mr. Ashok Kumar Bahl and Mr. Rajiv Kumar Thakur, Advocates along with Mr. Kamal Chhabra AGM and Mr. Sanjeet Kumar Dy. Manager for State Bank of India Tis hazari Branch Delhi.

CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. These matters pertain to the Kalkaji Mandir, which this Court has been hearing from time to time. These are part-heard matters.
3. On the last date of hearing i.e., on 20th February, 2024 this Court had directed the Delhi Police to conduct an investigation and submit a detailed report stating as to who were the persons responsible for the incident that took place on the intervening night of 27/28th January, 2024 within the Kalkaji mandir premises as a result of which several got injured and one women passed away. The Delhi Police has filed its status report pursuant to order dated 20th February, 2024. The said status report reads as under:
“ It is submitted that in the intervening night of 27/28.01.2024 at 12.41 am, a PCR call vide GD No. 11A was received at Police Station, Kalkaji, Delhi regarding collapse of stage at Kalkaji temple during Jagran. After the call the IO/SI Sushil Kumar reached the spot incident and the injured persons were shifted to different hospitals. Subseqeuntly, crime team also visited the spot and took photographs of the place of incident. Meanwhile, information was received from different hospitals regarding MLCs of 16 victims who have sustained injuries in the said incident out of which one lady aged about 55 years was declared brought dead at MAX Hospital, Saket. Later on, the deceased was identified as Teena (aged-55 yrs)w/o Ved Prakash r/o Tuglakabad Extension, Govindpuri, Delhi.
xxx
6. As per the statements of witnesses recorded u/s 161 CrPC, it has been found that the incident had taken place due to the negligence of the organizers of the Jagran. The statements of singers Arjun Suri and Rahul Banjara were recorded in which they stated that they were contacted by one Satish Kumar and Anuj Mittal to perform in the said event. Later on, statement of Rajesh Khurana, the owner of Rama Tent Decorators was also recorded who stated that he was contacted by Satish Kumar and Anuj Mittal for installing the main stage and tent at the said event. He further stated that the elevated platform which had collapsed on the date of incident was installed by one Aviram Patra, the owner of ANK Innovation on the request of the organizers. It was found that the event was organized by Shri Kalkaji Sajja Sewadar Mitr Mandal (SKSSMM) and Anuj Mittal is its president. Subsequently, notices u/s 41A CrPC were served upon Anuj Mittal and Satish Kumar and both the accused persons were arrested on 30.01.2024 after interrogation and were released on bail. The invitation card for the said event was obtained from the accused person Anuj Mittal, President of SKSSMM and the same was seized. Subsequently, Sh. Aviram Patra was interrogated who stated that the said platform was installed by him on the request of the organizers Anuj Mittal and Satish Kumar and the same was made only for 20-25 people to seat there. That no chairs were put on the elevated platform. He further stated that a trial was conducted by him in which it was found that the said platform would bear the weight of approximately 50 persons and that when the incident had occurred, he was present at the said event and that more than 100 hundred persons had climbed on the platform and efforts were made to disperse the crowd from the sad platform. He had also requested Anuj Mittal and Satish Kumar to control the crowd but no heed was paid to the said request.
7. The organizers have stated that they had obtained verbal permission to use the premises for the event from Mahant of Kalkaji Mandir and on their request, Sh. Surender Nath Avdhoot through his representative Yogi Abhinav Nath had requested the DGM, BSES, Nehru Place, Delhi vide letter dated 19/12/2023 (Copy enclosed) to provide temporary electricity meter for Chowki/ Jagran purpose at Mahant Niwas Parisar from 19.12.2023 till 28.01.2024 in the name of Society Shri Kalkaji Sajja Sewadar Mitr Mandal During investigation, the details regarding installation of electricity meter for the Jagran programme was obtained from BSES in which it was found that the programme was being organised by the Shri Kalka Ji Sajja Sewadar Mitr Mandal and the accused Anuj Mittal is its President. The organizers had also decorated the Kalkaji temple main Bhawan and a table was placed near the Bhawan to collect the donations after taking permission of the Baridars. That investigation has reveled that the organizers did not seek permission for the Chowki or Jagran from the Ld. Administrator as per his office. The 51 days Chowki had commenced at the Mahant Parisar, Kalkaji Temple on 8th December, 2023 and the organizers Anuj Mittal had met the Ld. Administrator in the last week of December, 2023 for inviting him to participate in the Chowki. As such, the Ld. Administrator participated in one chowki as a devotee on 3rd Jan 24. The Ld. Administrator office has asserted that the Mahant ji never takes permission from his office for any activity in the Mahant Parisar. Rather, Ld. Administrator has to take Mahant ji’s permission to use the Mahant Parisar Hall for accommodating medical team etc. during Navratras.
8. A request has been sent to obtain the certified copy of the certificate of registration of the above said society Shri Kalkaji Sajja Sewadar Mitr Mandal from the office of SDM/Sarita Vihar and the report is awaited.
9. During investigation, statement of Sh. Prem Kumar Sharma (who has printed the invitation card), Rajkumar Khanna (who has provided the sound system at the said event), Akash Dang(photographer), Veerbhan Singhal (one of the promoters) and Manish Kumar Chabbra (who has provided the clothing and decoration for the goddess) were recorded in which they all stated that they were contacted by the organizers/accused Anuj Mittal and Satish Kumar to provide for their services for the said event.
10. During the course of investigation, it has been found that Shri Kalkaji Sajja Sewadar Mitr Mandal had organized the Jagran from 27-28/01/24. Anuj Mittal is the president of the said society. The Jagran was being held continuously from the year of 2009 onwards. This year, the permission was not granted by Police as the organisers failed to produce NOC from the fire department and Structure stability certificate from MCD and also the permission was sought to use the load speaker beyond 10 PM. However, sufficient police staff was deployed to maintain law and order situation inside Kalkaji Mandir at Mehant Parisar. One elevated platform was installed near the main stage at a height of around 12 feet for seating20/25 persons from the families of the organisers/VIP and camarmen. At about 12.30 AM, when the programme of singer B Praak started who has a huge fan following. Some of the spectators got excited who rushed and climbed on the elevated platform.
11. The organizers remained negligent in regulating the movement of people on the platform which collapsed. During the programme an uncontrolled crowd climbed on the platform which when collapsed lead to the unfortunate incident. Moreover, the function was being held without any permission.”

4. A perusal of the above status report reveals clearly that the jagran was organised by Shri. Kalkaji Sajja Sewadar Mitr Mandal and its president/office bearers Mr. Anuj Mittal and Mr. Satish Kumar who were the organisers. They were given permission by Mr. Surender Nath Avdhoot who describes himself as the Mahant of the Kalkaji Mandir. The Mahant is stated to have sent his representative Yogi Abhinav Nath for obtaining permissions from the DGM, BSES, Nehru Palace for conducting the chowki/jagran from 19th December, 2023 to 28th January, 2024 in the name of the said Sewadar Mandal. The organizers, thereafter, got the pandal and other arrangements made including installation of the electricity meter, the photography, videography etc.
5. The status report leaves no doubt in the mind of the Court that the permission for conducting the said jagran was given by the Mahant. Moreover, vide order dated 20th February, 2024, the Court had observed that the Mahant himself had filed an affidavit stating that he has handed over the control and management of the Kalkaji Mandir premises to the ld. Administrator after the order dated 27th September, 2021. The relevant portion of the last order is set out below:
“4. As per the ld. Administrator, the event was organized by these two individuals who are stated to be the members of the abovementioned Sevadar Mitr Mandal organisation. They wrote to the DCP (South-East) District on 22nd November, 2023 seeking permission to organise the jagran and use loud speakers. However, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, S.H.O, Kalkaji, who is present virtually, submits that no permission was granted. It is not in doubt that the program was held in the Mahant parisar. The Mahant himself has filed an affidavit stating that he has handed over the management and control of the Kalkaji Mandir premises to the ld. Administrator after the order dated 27th September, 2021. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under:
“106. For the effective dav-to-dav administration, efficient and smooth functioning, as also to ensure that the above-mentioned issues are addressed at the Kalkaii Mandir. this Court is of the opinion that an Independent Administrator is required to be appointed bv this Court for performing various functions in relation to the Mandir and its complex. Accordingly, Justice (Retd.) Mr. J.R Midha. is appointed as the Administrator of the Shri Kalkaii Mandir. Delhi. The mandate of the Administrator shall be to take all necessary steps inter alia, as set out herein below, in the interest of devotees, pilgrims, baridaars, in order to ensure their safety and security, as also to preserve the integrity and sanctity of the deity and the Mandir. Which is of utmost historical importance to the people of Delhi. The id- Administrator shall take all steps needed in light of the facts recorded above for the effective and safe functioning of the Mandir.
xxxx
108. (iv) Upon removal of all unauthorized occupants and encroachments, the Id. Administrator shall direct the civic agencies and the Fire department concerned to secure the entire land belonging to the Mandir by means of barricading/ raising walls, to avoid future encroachments/unauthorized occupation. The entire Mandir complex shall be under the direct supervision and control of the Id. Administrator.”

6. It is clear from the ld. Administrator’s report, that the ld. Administrator has not given any permission for holding the event.
7. Further, it is submitted that the investigation is yet to be concluded with respect to the incident which took place in the jagran and as to who all are responsible for conducting the same. Thus, it is directed that the police shall continue its investigation and conclude the same expeditiously and take action against all persons who are culpable.
8. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, S.H.O. Kalkaji, who is present virtually, has assured the Court that the investigation shall be completed within four weeks and the chargesheet shall be filed. The statement is taken on record.
Mandir Redevelopment Office
9. Ld. Counsel for the Mahant-Mr. Anjani Kumar Mishra submits that the hall which is now meant to be used for the purpose of an office for the redevelopment of the mandir belongs to him individually and, therefore, it cannot be converted into office for redevelopment. According to Mr. Mishra, the said hall is located in the area of Mandir premises belonging to the Mahant alone and thus cannot be permitted to be used for any other purpose.
10. The ld. Administrator has also stated in his 15th Report that even for use of the said hall as a medical facility, the Administrator is forced to seek the permission of the Mahant.
11. It is made clear that no particular individual can claim any rights in this manner for any particular portion of the Kalkaji Mandir. This has been made clear even in the order dated 20th February, 2024.
“8. From the above, it is clear that the Mahant’s position is that he is not authorized to take administrative decisions or to give any permission to organizers for holding any program in the premises. The premises of the Kalkaji Mandir is for the use by the public and no individual or entity can exercise exclusive control on any part of the said premises. The ld. Administrator having been appointed and given full management and control, any event that has to be organized would require permission. Without the same, no program shall be organized within the Mandir precincts. No jagran shall be held or any other similar events would be permitted in the Kalkaji Mandir. If any organization wishes to hold any jagran or similar religious program, such organization may approach the Court for seeking permission by way of an application.

xxx xxx xxx
17. The ld. Administrator seeks a space for the office for the redevelopment work. The ld. Administrator’s report states as under:
“9. The undersigned suggested that going forward, a project office space would be required to be set up at the Mandir for the redevelopment work, as well as for convening meetings of the Oversight Committee, etc. The space at the office of the Administrator is not adequate for this purpose. The anterior area of the hall adjoining the office of the Administrator, which is presently

Office of the Ld. Administrator Kalkaji Mandir Email ID:
officeofadmnkalkajimandir@gmail.com
lying vacant, would be suitable for the said purpose. The said area is under the control of the Mahant. The pujaris were in agreement that a project office should be created for the purpose of the redevelopment project.”
18. The hall which the ld. Administrator requires for the purpose of office space for the redevelopment is stated to be under the control of the Mahant. The affidavit extracted above of the Mahant makes it clear that he does not dispute that the entire administration and control of the Kalkaji Mandir premises is with the ld. Administrator.
19. Mr. Mishra, ld. Counsel appearing for the Mahant objects on the ground that the Mahant’s hall cannot be permitted to be used by the ld. Administrator. It is again made clear that no part of the Kalkaji Mandir can be exclusively under the control of any one person. The entire Mandir has to be used for the purpose of welfare of the devotees. Presently, the redevelopment work is of utmost importance for the safety, welfare and security of the devotees. Accordingly, the hall which is lying vacant as per the ld. Administrator’s report be used as the office for redevelopment. ”
12. The history of these proceedings show that various steps have been taken and are presently underway to ensure that the visit by devotees to the Kalkaji Mandir is conducted in a more orderly and organized fashion. However, from time to time, various sets of persons including shopkeepers, hawkers and other individuals have raised numerous disputes.
13. It is repeatedly clarified by the ld. Division Bench of this Court and by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in various SLPs that the redevelopment of the Mandir has to take place and shall continue without any impediment. The said relevant orders read as under:
i) Vide order dated 25th March, 2022 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) Diary No.9073/2022 titled Nathi Ram Bhardwaj & Ors. v. Neeta Bhardwaj & Ors., the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
“ 1. Permission to file the Special Leave Petitions granted.
2. We are not inclined to entertain the Special Leave Petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution. The Special Leave Petitions are accordingly dismissed.
3. We grant liberty to the petitioners to move the Administrator appointed by the High Court with their grievances. It would be open to the Administrator to place a report before the High Court for suitable directions. However, maintenance of the temple and its surroundings in a dignified manner in the interests of the devotees must be of paramount importance.
4. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.”

(ii) SLP (C) Nos.010688-010689/2022 titled Nathi Ram Bhardwaj & Ors. v. Neeta Bhardwaj & Ors. The 17 Petitioners in these SLPs are pujaris who conduct puja sewa at the Kalkaji Mandir. In this SLP, the following order was passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, on 13th June, 2022:
“Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the material available on record.
Application seeking permission to file the Special Leave Petitions is allowed.
Applications seeking exemption from filing the certified copy of the impugned orders as also for seeking exemption from filing the official translation of the Annexure are allowed.
Issue notice to the respondents
Dasti service, in addition, is permitted.
In the meanwhile, there shall be no impediment for carrying out the redevelopment as directed by High Court of Delhi through the orders impugned herein but such re-development shall be without dispossessing the petitioners from the premises wherein they are stated to be residing at present.
Tag this Special Leave Petitions along with Special Leave Petitions(Civil) Nos. 32452- 32453 of 2013.”

(iii) SLP (C) 011140-011141/2022 titled Ram Swarath Singh & Ors. v. Neeta Bhardwaj & Ors., was filed by the occupants of the Saligram Kayastha Dharamshala. In the said SLP, the following order dated 27th June, 2022 was passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court:
“Heard learned counsel for the parties.
We are not inclined to entertain the Special Leave Petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution. The same are accordingly, dismissed.
We however, grant liberty to the petitioners to approach the ld. Administrator appointed by the High Court with their grievances including allotment of alternative spaces for rehabilitation.
We have no reason to doubt that the Administrator shall examine such claims in accordance with law and policy.
If the petitioners file an undertaking before the Administrator to hand-over peaceful vacant possession, they shall be permitted to retain possession for a period of two weeks. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.”

(iv) SLP (C) 013726-013728/2022 titled Vichiter Bhardwaj v. Neeta Bhardwaj and Ors., wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, vide order dated 5th August, 2022, observed as under:
“2. Since the grievance of the petitioner is that he was not a party to the proceedings before the High Court, we grant liberty to the petitioner to move the High Court or, as the case may be, the Administrator with specific grievance, which shall be considered in accordance with law.
3. Subject to the grant of aforesaid liberty, the Special Leave Petitions are dismissed.
4. Liberty is also granted to the petitioner to move this Court afresh, including on the grounds which are sought to be raised in the present proceedings.

v) In LPA No.172/2022 titled Vinayak Bhardwaj v. Neeta Bhardwaj, the ld. Division Bench has also affirmed this position. The operative portion of the said order dated 29th March, 2022 passed by the ld. Division Bench reads as under:
“11. In view of the fact that two important facts are undisputed in this appeal, firstly, ownership rights in the property and secondly, that the redevelopment of the Kalkaji Mandir is essential which is not disputed by any of the parties, it would be appropriate to give fair chance to the appellant/ applicant to appear before the learned Administrator to raise his concern. The learned Administrator is thus requested to give personal hearing to the applicant on 31st March, 2022, when the appellant/ applicant will be at liberty to give written representation along with necessary documents, if so desires. The learned Administrator on hearing the appellant/ applicant will submit a report to the learned Single Judge so that suitable directions if necessary are issued by the learned Single Judge.””

14. In view of all the above orders the redevelopment is to continue. There is also no doubt that a project office space has to be created for the redevelopment work.
15. As per the report of the Ld. Administrator, despite various orders and directions of this Court, the Mahant is not permitting the ld. Administrator and other stakeholders to use the empty hall as the project office and is creating repeated impediments in the same.
16. Ld. Administrator may, accordingly, break open the locks which have been installed in the empty hall with the assistance of the police and install fresh locks. The Mahant would not in any manner cause any impediment in the said hall being used as a project office for the redevelopment work.
17. The allegation that the said hall is a private property is clearly not tenable inasmuch as the same falls within the precincts of the Mandir area, and for the redevelopment work and for medical facilities for devotees, the use of the said space is required. The project office would obviously not be a permanent office and would be used only during the redevelopment work.
18. Under such circumstances, no obstruction can be caused for the use of the said space for redevelopment of the Kalkaji Mandir. The hall shall be under the supervision and control of the ld. Administrator who shall merely use it for the purpose of the activities within the Kalkaji Mandir. Repeatedly, it has been observed by the Court that the land in Kalkaji Mandir does not belong to any individual but to two groups. The same is also borne out in order dated 22nd December, 2023. The relevant portion of the said order is set out below for reference:
“26. Moreover, even if the Mahant has been residing in a particular area within the precincts of the Shri. Kalkaji Mandir the same would not in any manner vest any ownership rights as the land is stated to be belonging equally to thok Jogians and thok brahmins and there is no delineation between them. One individual cannot stall the redevelopment of such a big Mandir where lakhs of devotees visit every year, especially when the amenities and facilities for devotees were in a really appalling condition, which in fact led to appointment of an Administrator.”

Redevelopment
19. The plan for redevelopment has been finalised in terms of order dated 22nd December 2023. Vide, order dated 20th February, 2024, it was directed that division of work between Architects be completed and respective roles be delineated for the purpose of obtaining other approvals in respect of the plan. The Architects have broadly agreed on delineation of their work as per the minutes of meeting dated 26th February, 2024. The said delineation is set out below:

20. This is acceptable to all the stakeholders, who are present in Court including the baridaars and pujaris as also to the two Architects i.e., Mr. Chauhan (DFI) and Earthgrove (Ms. Kaushik). In terms of the above table, before the Architects commence their work for finalization of ‘Concept’ of Master Planning, approvals, schematic, General Conditions for Contract (GCC), Tenders and other works towards redevelopment must be concluded. In the meantime, if Ms. Kaushik requires any assistance regarding survey of particular individual buildings, two individuals are permitted to accompany her for the meetings with Mr. Rajesh Bahal.
21. Ld. Administrator’s report suggests that for the Court appointed architect, the consultancy fee be fixed at Rs.21 lakhs + GST charges as lump sum. The same is approved. It is made clear that despite delineation of work, which has been extracted above, the Court appointed Architect shall continuously supervise the works being carried out and guide the redevelopment team for redevelopment of the Kalkaji mandir. For the said purpose, a monthly lumpsum would be fixed by the Court regarding which the ld. Administrator shall consult the Court appointed Architect and Ms. Kaushik. Pursuant thereto the ld. Administrator shall make recommendations regarding the charges, on the next date of hearing. Since the Master Planning consultancy has now been fixed, Mr. Goonmeet Singh Chauhan and Ms. Himanshi Kaushik shall work out a budget for the redevelopment costs so that the fee of Ms. Kaushik can also be fixed on the next date of hearing. The same shall also be done along with assistance of Mr. Bahal, head of contracts under the aegis of the office of ld. Administrator.
Demarcation
22. Vide order dated 12th January, 2024, the Court had asked the office of the SDM, to file a written demarcation report. The S.D.M. office has requested further time for finalization of the demarcation report. Considering the fact that the redevelopment work is held up, the final demarcation report shall now be placed before the Court within four weeks.
23. The fee of the Demarcation Agency to the tune of Rs.9,57,175.88/- be also released by the Registrar General through ld. Administrator’s account, once the same is certified by the S.D.M.
Arrangements for Navratras from 9th April, 2024 to 17th April, 2024
24. Report of the ld. Administrator records that Navratras are beginning from 9th April, 2024 till 17th April, 2024. Accordingly, ld. Administrator shall take all necessary steps as taken in the past during Navratras season for safety and security arrangements, cleanliness and sanitation, removal of unauthorized street vendors on the periphery of the Mandir premises, deployment of civil volunteers, doctor/paramedic/first aid, fire-fighting arrangements, uninterrupted electricity to be provided, mobile toilets be also arranged. Water supply and sanitation facilities for the devotees shall be arranged with the help of Delhi Jal Board. If there is any repair of wall or pathways to be undertaken, the same shall be completed in an expedited manner with the help of PWD.
25. Insofar as the traffic and parking arrangements are concerned, the ld. Administrator may engage a M.C.D. authorized parking contractor for managing the parking arrangements with a minimum fee, as was directed to be deposited in the account of the ld. Administrator. The agency shall pay a sum of Rs.6.5 lakhs as a minimum amount with the ld. Administrator. The said funds will enable the office to defray the additional expenses for Navratra arrangement.
26. All the authorities concerned including police, D.D.A., D.M.R.C., D.J.B., BSES, D.F.S., DUSIB, M.C.D., S.D.M. shall render cooperation during Navratras period for smooth conduct of Navratras in the Kalkaji Mandir.
27. Mr. Birbal, ld. Counsel for the D.D.A. submits that the D.D.A. is unable to give instructions, insofar as the parking space is concerned. In view thereof, the letter dated 19th December, 1994, confirmed by letter dated 17th January, 1995 written by the D.D.A. shall be taken as stand of the D.D.A with no further permission being granted to the DDA to file an affidavit. By the said letter Mr. C. Banerjee, Chief Engineer(SEZ),DDA stated that the D.D.A. has taken up development of some portion of the trust land adjoining the DDA parking and that any development work which had been undertaken by the DDA on the land of the Kalkaji Mandir shall be the exclusive property of the Mandir.
28. Ld. Administrator also intends to start an automatic ticket issuance system for distribution of passes and the same be verified with QR code and bands be provided for entry. As per the report the administrator has also requested police to monitor passes for the purpose of special darshan. Let the same be discussed with the concerned pujaris.
Conducting of Pooja Sewa
29. Insofar as the nomination of third parties for conducting of pooja sewa and for accepting offerings is concerned, the same shall not be permitted by the ld. Administrator.
30. If any contingency arises due to medical issues or any other issue regarding the conducting of pooja sewa by any baaridar, and if need arises for the nomination of any person from amongst the family members, then an appropriate application would have to be moved before this Court.
Demolition of Chabutras
31. Insofar as the chabutras are concerned, it has been reported that the demolition of chabutras and removal of malba is being undertaken at a lumpsum amount of Rs.5.05 lakhs by a contractor i.e., M/s. Amar Chand. It is submitted that one devotee-M/s G.R. Construction, proprietor of Sh. Ganga Ram has agreed to undertake the levelling of the land and removal of debris free of cost. Let the ld. Administrator monitor the work being undertaken and regularly provide updates regarding the same.
32. Insofar as the installation of the gate is concerned, ld. Counsel for the ld. Administrator informs the Court that the same has been erected.
Supervisory/ Oversight Committee
33. Insofar as the Oversight Committee is concerned, the recommendation of ld. Administrator is as under:
“44. The Administrator had, in the Report No. 14 dated 02.12.2023, nominated 10 names on the Oversight Committee on the basis of their participation in the meetings and equal representation from each Thulla i.e. two Pujaris from each Thulla, viz.:
(i) Vipul Gaur (Thulla Jasram)
(ii) Mahesh Bhardwaj (Thulla Jasram)
(iii) RK Bhardwaj/Neeraj Bharadwaj (Thulla Tansukh)
(iv) Sidharth Bharadwaj (Thulla Tansukh)
(v) Lokesh Bharadwaj @ Sittu (Thulla Bahadur)
(vi) Ashok Bharadwaj (Thulla Bahadur)
(vii) Atul Bhardwaj (Thulla Rambaksh)
(viii) Sarvesh Bhardwaj (Thulla Rambaksh)
(ix) Mahant Surendranath (Thok Jogian)
(x) Satish Chand Pandey (Thok Jogian)”

34. On the last date of hearing on 20th February, 2024, one Mr. Akarshan Bhardwaj had raised an objection in respect of the above Oversight Committee being constituted. Accordingly, the Court had directed that the list of pujaris be placed on record. Today, with the 15th Report, a list of pujaris has been filed, which shows that there are at least 750 pujaris belonging to thok jogian and brahmins.
35. It is made clear that considering the large quantum of work that is to be done in the redevelopment work, an Oversight Committee would have to be constituted at the earliest to help the ld. Administrator and the Architects. If any group has any objection on the next date of hearing, they may make their submissions, after which the Oversight Committee shall be constituted by the Court.
36. The mandate of the Oversight Committee as suggested by the ld. Administrator is as under:
“The mandate of the Oversight Committee shall be as follows:
1. To hold meetings on a weekly basis with PMC/ consultants at office and site of works.
2. To oversee the planning of site and public movement in consultation with the consultants.
3. To oversee the standards of the material for construction activities as per specifications.
4. Arrangement and coordination of all storage and maintenance of donated Inventory.
5. Specifying the List of Vendors for both material as well as labour rate/ recovery rate basis for incorporation of the relevant clause in the tender document.
6. The PMC shall prepare and recommend the legal tenders, contracts and other legal documents for approval of the Oversight Committee.
7. Review of the bills of materials and works for the entire project (defining what material is to be installed in consultation with the architects /consultants.)
8. Recommend amendments, if necessary, in the master plan with approval and consultation of the architects and consultants.
9. Final approval of payments for consultants and vendors on the basis of the recommendations of the PMC and the architect (Ms. Himanshi Kaushik). The payments shall be released by the Office of the Ld. Administrator on the basis of the stated recommendations.
10. To arrange for donations in the form of monies, which shall be received in a designated Donations Account.
11. Appointment of financial consultants/ CA for the compliances of all statutory tax requirements, etc. as well as for the preparation of account statements and balance sheets, including their approval. The scope of work of the financial consultants/ CA shall be defined separately.
12. Approval and making of budgets in coordination with the consultants and CA.
13. Working as a project coordinator between pujaris / architects and other consultants and other departments.”

37. On this issue, submissions shall be heard on the next date of hearing.
Offerings of small temples
38. In paragraph 58 of the ld. Administrator’s 15th Report, it is stated that certain individuals are collecting the offerings made in the smaller temples on their own and not putting the same in common pool or baridaars. On this issue, submissions shall be heard on the next date of hearing.
Street Vendors
39. The affidavit of the M.C.D. has been placed on record in compliance of order dated 20th February, 2024. The same is not on record. Let the same be brought on record.
40. As per the M.C.D., there are a total of 49+51 vendors who have been licensed to vend their wares in the precincts of the Kalkaji Mandir. Considering the nature of the matter and the photographs which have placed on record, it is deemed appropriate to issue notice to the Town Vending Committee, GNCTD so as to make its stand clear in respect of this report. Copy of this order be served upon Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Standing Counsel, GNCTD who shall file an affidavit of the Town Vending Committee by the next date of hearing.
41. Copy of this report be also supplied to the lawyers who are appearing for the vendors as also to the baridaars and pujaris.
42. List on 26th April, 2024.
CS(OS) 57/2022 & FAO 36/2021
43. List on 22nd March, 2024 at 2:30 p.m.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
MARCH 12, 2024/dk/rahul/dj/bh/ks
(corrected & released on 14th March, 2024)

FAO 36/2021 & connected matters Page 2 of 2