The Allahabad High Court on Monday dismissed the Gyanvapi masjid committee’s plea against prayers by the Hindu side in the sealed cellar of the mosque.
Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal dismissed the Masjid committee’s plea and upheld an earlier order of the Varanasi district court permitting prayers by the Hindu side in the sealed cellar of the mosque, known as 'Vyas Tehkhana'. Advocate representing the Hindu side, Vishnu Shankar Jain, told presspersons that pujas in the Vyas Tehkhana will continue. The bench heard arguments of both sides in the case on February 15.
"Today, the Allahabad High Court has dismissed the first appeal from orders of Anjuman Intezamia 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,” ANI reported quoting Jain.
The petition against the Varanasi Court's January 31 order was filed by the Anjuman Intezamia Mosque Committee (which manages Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi) on February 1. It came after the Varanasi court on January 31 order allowed the Hindu side to perform 'Puja' In 'Vyas Tehkhana' (southern cellar of Gyanvapi Mosque).
According to the order, a Hindu priest can perform prayers before the idols in the southern cellar of the Gyanvapi mosque and the prayers will be conducted by a "pujari" nominated by the Kashi Vishwanath temple trust.
The mosque committee approached the Supreme Court against the order, seeking an urgent hearing but the top court refused to hear its plea and asked the petitioners to approach the Allahabad High Court.
The main argument of the mosque committee was that the Vyas Tehkhana was under its possession since it was a part of the Mosque premises and that the Vyas family or anyone else did not have any right to worship inside the Tehkhana. The Muslim side further argued that there had been no prayers in the 'Tehkhana' since 1993 and if after 30 years, the court was appointing a receiver and changing the status quo, there should have been some cogent reason behind the decision.
The petitioners also submitted that the Hindu plaintiff was never in possession of the Vyas Tehkhana, and the question about the possession can only be decided after framing of issues, reported Live Law.