AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ
The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by the petitioner contending that, since the river flowing adjacent to Har-Ki-Pauri is the river
Ganges, the State should rename the escape channel as the river Ganges.
The extraordinary jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can be invoked not only for violation of fundamental rights of a citizen
but also for violation of any of his legal rights. Ordinarily the High Court would not examine issues of faith, as such matters are not amenable for
adjudication in summary proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
When we asked Mr. Abhijay Negi, learned counsel for the petitioner, to show us which legal right of the petitioner has been violated, for him to
invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, learned counsel is not able to show us any. A feeble
submission is made that the petitioner’s constitutional right, under Article 363 of the Constitution of India, has been violated since the channel near
Har-Ki-Pauri was also called the river Ganges pursuant to a pre-constitutional agreement entered into by British India with some princely States and
the Government of the United Provinces. Article 363 of the Constitution bars interference by Courts in disputes arising out of certain treaties,
agreements etc. No right is conferred thereby on the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Mr. Abhijay Negi, learned counsel for the petitioner, would then submit that, as the petitioner has already made a representation on 16.05.2020, the
State Government be directed to consider the representation at the earliest.
As the petitioner has not been able to show us any legal right of his having been violated, we see no reason to issue any such directions. Suffice it to
make it clear that the order now passed by us shall not disable the State Government, if it so chooses, to consider the petitioner’s representation,
take a decision in this regard with utmost expedition, and in accordance with law.
Subject to the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.