Judgement : 1. A fortnight earlier, a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 2012.2019 has dismissed a writ petition wherein a Mandamus was sought against the Government of India and the State Government to permit the Muslims to offer ‘Namaz’ at the disputed land known as Ram Janmbhoomi-Babri Masjid as the Hindus were permitted to perform religious activities in the area. Now the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner mainly with the prayer that respondents to the writ petition be commanded to permit the petitioner and other members of the Brahmin Sansad to carry out religious activity in nine old/ancient temples housing the idols of various Gods and Goddesses situated on the undisputed acquired land adjacent to the Ram Janam Bhoomi Complex. 2. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is a social activist and is a Chairman of Brahmin Sansad, an Apex body created by a Trust Deed for espousing the cause of the Brahmins. Later on, the Organization started striving for construction of Lord Ram Temple by initiating the process of reconciliation between the parties and with the objective in sight, the petitioner had organized Parikarma at Ram Janm Bhumi. It is said that the petitioner has also been appointed as General Secretary of the Ram Janam Bhumi Parikarma Mahasimiti and thereafter he is making constant endeavour for initiation of religious activity in the old Hindu Temples. 3. Smt. Nalini Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the issue relating to the disputed land as well as the undisputed land is sub-judice before the Apex Court but on the basis of judicial and administrative orders, the propitiation of the idol of Ramlala is being done daily at regular intervals but paradoxically on the undisputed land housing the temples of various deities the government machinery is totally amnesic to the fact that religious activist is also required to be carried out in the said temples and denial of the same would incur the wrath of these Gods and Goddesses which is not a good omen for the growth of the country and the State. 4. 4. It has also been stated that though a rightist Hindu Party is at the helm of affairs, both at the Centre and the State but still they are turning a blind eye to the initiation of religious activity in 16 ancient temples situated on the acquired but undisputed land as since last 25 years, the deities in the said temples are snoozing due to lack of any religious activity. 5. According to the learned Counsel, petitioner has made various representations to the concerned authorities including the President of India and the Prime Minister. It is said that the Prime Minister has forwarded the matter to the Ministry of Home Affairs for necessary action but till date, no positive steps have been taken. 6. Rebutting the assertions of the petitioner, Sri S.B. Pandey, Assistant Solicitor General of India has submitted that the relief as sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted in view of the various orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various Civil Appeals, leading of which is Civil Appeal No. 10866-10867 of 2010; M.Siddiq @ H.M. Siddiq, Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind. 7. Learned Assistant Solicitor General of India has also invited our attention towards the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993 and said that the Acquisition Act was enacted with the sole object to 3 maintain public order and to promote communal harmony and spirit of common brotherhood amongst the people of India and as such none can be allowed to disturb the communal harmony. 8. Similar sort of the arguments have been advanced by Sri Prakash Singh, Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Sri Pankaj Srivastava, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel. He also urged that there was no occasion for the petitioner to file such a writ petition when it is known to all that the instant sensitive matter is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which is seized of the matter. 9. It has also been pointed out by the respondents that order of status quo is operating not only on the disputed land but also on the adjoining land. 10. As regard the acquisition of the land situated adjoining the disputed site, the Central Government in the year 1993 brought a Bill. 9. It has also been pointed out by the respondents that order of status quo is operating not only on the disputed land but also on the adjoining land. 10. As regard the acquisition of the land situated adjoining the disputed site, the Central Government in the year 1993 brought a Bill. In the Statement of Objects and Reasons enacting the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993 [hereinafter refereed to as 'the Act'], it has been stated as follows:- "WHEREAS there has been a long- standing dispute relating to the structure (including the premises of the inner and outer courtyards of such structure), commonly known as the Ram Janma Bhumi- Babri Masjid, situated in village Kot Ramchandra in Ayodhya, in Pargana Haveli Avadh, in tehsil Faizabad Sadar, in the district of Faizabad of the State of Uttar Pradesh; AND WHEREAS the said dispute has affected the maintenance of public order and harmony between different communities in the country; AND WHEREAS it is necessary to maintain public order and to promote communal harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst the people of India; AND WHEREAS with a view to achieving the aforesaid objectives, it is necessary to acquire certain areas in Ayodhya.” 11. Later on, One Mohd. Aslam, who was also one of the petitioners in Constitution Bench Judgment in Ismail Faruqui’s case filed a writ petition seeking certain reliefs with regard to 67.703 acres of land acquired under the Act, 1993. The Apex Court, upholding the government’s acquisition, had held any step taken to arrest escalation of communal tension can, by no stretch of argumentation, be termed non-secular or against the concept of secularism. The operative part of the order dated 31.3.2003 passed in Writ Petition (civil) 160 of 2002; Mohd. Aslma @Bhure vs. Union of India whereby parties were directed to maintain status quo read as under:- “On consideration of the entire matter, we are of the view that the order made by this Court on 13.3.2002, as modified by the order made on 14.3.2002, should be operative until disposal of the suits in the High Court of Allahabad not only to maintain communal harmony but also to fulfill other objectives of the Act. The writ petition shall stand disposed of accordingly.” 12. The writ petition shall stand disposed of accordingly.” 12. It is also relevant to observe that the suits pertaining to Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute were decided on September 30, 2010, by a Full Bench of this Court. The Full Bench apportioned one-third of the land to Hindus, one-third to Muslims and one-third to Lord Ram, the deity. 13. Against this judgment, many parties which appealed in Supreme Court, included the Suni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara, All India Hindu Maha Sabha and Bhagwan Shri Ram Virajman. On 9th May 2011, the Supreme Court stayed the verdict on Ayodhya of Allahabad High Court. The relevant part of the aforesaid order reads as under:- “The appeals are admitted for hearing. During the pendency of the appeals, the operation of the judgment and decree passed by the Allahabad High Court shall remain stayed. Further, we are pleased to note that there is complete unanimity on maintaining status quo and all the parties are in agreement that order may be passed for maintaining status quo on the disputed site and on the adjoining land. We, therefore, pass the following orders :- During the pendency of the appeals, the parties shall maintain status quo in regard to suit land, as directed by an earlier judgment and order passed by this Court in ’Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.’ (1994) 6 SCC 360 vide. paragraphs 86, 87, which are reproduced below :- 86. The best solution in the circumstances, on revival of suits is, therefore, to maintain status quo as on 7-1-1993 when the law came into force modifying the interim orders in the suits to that extent by curtailing the practice of worship by Hindus in the disputed area to the extent it stands reduced under the Act instead of 6 conferring on them the larger right available under the court orders till intervention was made by legislation. 87. Section 7(2) achieves this purpose by freezing the interim arrangement for worship by Hindu devotees reduced to this extent and curtails the larger right they enjoyed under the court orders, ensuring that it cannot be enlarged till final adjudication of the dispute and consequent transfer of the disputed area to the party found entitled to the same. 87. Section 7(2) achieves this purpose by freezing the interim arrangement for worship by Hindu devotees reduced to this extent and curtails the larger right they enjoyed under the court orders, ensuring that it cannot be enlarged till final adjudication of the dispute and consequent transfer of the disputed area to the party found entitled to the same. This being the purpose and true effect of Section 7(2), it promotes and strengthens the commitment of the nation to secularism instead of negating it. To hold this provision as anti-secular and slanted in favour of the Hindu community would be to frustrate an attempt to thwart anti-secularism and unwittingly support the forces which were responsible for the events of 6-12-1992.” 14. It is also relevant to mention that while passing the aforesaid order, the Apex Court further provided that as regards the land adjacent to the suit land which was the subject matter of acquisition by the Central Government, the parties shall maintain status quo. The relevant part of the order reads as under:- “Further, as regards the land adjacent to the suit land which was the subject matter of acquisition by the Central Government, the parties shall maintain status quo, as directed by the order of this Court in ’Mohd. Aslam Alias Bhure vs. Union of India and Others’, (2003) 4 SCC 1 vide. paragraphs 4 and 5 read with paragraph 17 of the report, which read as follows :- 4. In this proceeding, which is initiated as public interest petition, several relief’s were claimed but after the interested parties were impleaded and their pleading were put forth what has crystallized is as to the manner in which the adjacent land should be (SIC) final decision in the title suit pending in the High Court of Allahabad. This Court, on 13.3.2002, while issuing the rule, made the following order: "In the meantime, we direct that on the 67.703 acres of land located in revenue 7 plot Nos. 159 and 160 in village Kot Ramchandra which is vested in the Central Government, no religious activity of any kind by anyone either symbolic or actual including bhumi puja or shila puja, shall be permitted or allowed to take place. 159 and 160 in village Kot Ramchandra which is vested in the Central Government, no religious activity of any kind by anyone either symbolic or actual including bhumi puja or shila puja, shall be permitted or allowed to take place. Furthermore, no part of the aforesaid land shall be handed over by the Government to anyone and the same shall be retained by the Government till the disposal of this writ petition nor shall any part of this land be permitted to be occupied or used for any religious purpose or in connection therewith. This is subject to further orders which may be passed in this case.” 15. It may be noted that the aforesaid order was further clarified by the order dated 14.3.2002, which reads as under:- "After hearing the learned Attorney General, as there was some ambiguity in para 3 of our order dated 13-3-2002, we correct para 3 of our order as follows: ’In the meantime we direct that on the 67.703 acres of acquired land located in various plots detailed in the Schedule to Acquisition or Central Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993, which is vested in the Central Government, no religious activity of any kind by anyone either symbolic or actual including bhumi puja or shila puja, shall be permitted or allowed to take place. 17. On consideration of the entire matter, we are of the view that the order made by this Court on 13.3.2002, as modified by the order made on 14.3.2002, should be operative until disposal of the suits in the High Court of Allahabad not only to maintain communal harmony but also to fulfil other objectives of the Act….” 16. This dispute, undoubtedly one of the most sensitive case and known to persons of all faiths across the country that matter is receving attention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and about the order of status quo, which is still holding the field including the stay on the verdict given by the High Court on September, 2010. Moreover, the Advocate, who has filed the instant writ petition is well versed with the proceedings which were going on before a Full Bench in this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court being seized of the matter but even then, such a relief has been sought. Moreover, the Advocate, who has filed the instant writ petition is well versed with the proceedings which were going on before a Full Bench in this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court being seized of the matter but even then, such a relief has been sought. Moreover, when the Apex Court has passed an order of status quo for the undisputed and disputed site, this Court has no power to enlarge or modify the said order in any manner. 17. It may be added that the petitioner in the memo of the writ petition has shown his residence in district Lucknow, and it is highly unlikely that he would visit regularly to offer Pooja at Ayodhya. Further, in the writ petition, the petitioner has described himself to be the Chairman of a trust known as Brahmin Sansad and General Secretary of the of the Ran Janam bhumi Parikarma Mahasamiti but no documents have been annexed to substantiate the aforesaid facts. 18. Even otherwise any citizen in his own house or over his own property can define his place of worship but such a right cannot be acknowledged as a right to be asserted at a public place which has been established to be utilized by every member of the public at large for a particular purpose. Thus, the land which has been acquired by the Central Government in the interest of the public at large, cannot be claimed to be a place of worship as a matter of fundamental right, 19. The law is well settled that whenever a person approaches the Court, it becomes his bounden duty to do the home work in a positive direction and bring on record each and every detail indicating infringement of right to any citizen and the relating law. It is unfortunate that neither the petitioner nor the advocate appearing for the petitioner have done any home work before preparing this writ petition and have only levelled omnibus allegations. From the circumstances, it can easily be observed that the writ petition has been filed in reckless manner with the solitary purpose of getting cheap popularity amongst the masses. If such a practice is allowed to flourish, it will amount of gaining cheap popularity or to hit the headlines of the News Paper by misusing the process of law. 20. From the circumstances, it can easily be observed that the writ petition has been filed in reckless manner with the solitary purpose of getting cheap popularity amongst the masses. If such a practice is allowed to flourish, it will amount of gaining cheap popularity or to hit the headlines of the News Paper by misusing the process of law. 20. The Apex Court recently in the case of Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik And Ors V Mrs. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar And Ors (Decided on 1 March 2017) observed that a blatant abuse of the process of the court must be curb with exemplary costs and the relevant part of the order reads as under:- “The sanctity of the judicial process will be seriously eroded if such attempts are not dealt with firmly. A litigant who takes liberties with the truth or with the procedures of the Court should be left in no doubt about the consequences to follow. Others should not venture along the same path in the hope or on a misplaced expectation of judicial leniency. Exemplary costs are inevitable, and even necessary, in order to ensure that in litigation, as in the law which is practised in our country, there is no premium on the truth”. 21. Before concluding, it may be observed that religious tolerance has been one of the great traditions of the people of India. The people of different religions and sects have been living together since ages and contributing in the development of the country. This is a message for all the communities to show full faith and credit to the Constitution and judiciary for maintaining the rule of law and communal harmony. A tolerant society must be nurtured for our growth as a country. In Bijoe Emmanuel vs. State of Kerala; AIR 1987 SC 748 the Supreme Court observed that “our tradition teaches tolerance, our philosophy preaches tolerance, our Constitution practice tolerance, let us not dilute it.” In Aruna Roy vs. Union of India; 2002 SC 3176 the Apex Court said “Democracy cannot survive and the Constitution cannot function unless citizens are not only learned and intelligent, but they also of a good moral character and imbibe the inherent virtues of human being such as truth, love and compassion.” 22. In view of the aforesaid detailed facts and reasons, the writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs) which shall be deposited by the petitioner within two months from today before the Registry of this Court, failing which, the Senior Registrar of this Court shall request the District Magistrate/Collector concerned to recover the said cost as arrears of land revenue . On receipt of the said cost, the Senior Registrar shall transmit the entire amount to the account of U.P. Rani Lakshmi Bai Mahila Samman Kosh, Lucknow [State Bank of India, Jawahar Bhawan] which has been notified as Juvenile Justice Fund w.e.f. 4th January, 2017 under the Department of Women and Child Development, Government of Uttar Pradesh. It is further provided that the amount of the said cost shall be utilized for the Welfare of the poor children. 23. Compliance report be filed.