PIL Before Bombay High Court Challenges ₹200 ticket price For VIP Entry In Trimbakeshwar Temple at Nashik

A petition has been filed before the Bombay High Court against the levy of ₹200 for the VIP entry into the Trimbakeshwar Temple at Nashik in Maharashtra.

The petition has been filed by a social worker Lalita Shinde through Advocate Rameshwar Gite.

The petition states that the temple was declared a protected area and under the Ancient Monument Preservation Act, the temple has also been declared an ancient monument. The petition argues that the levy of ₹200 discriminates between the rich and the poor.

It further states that various representations were made before the Archaeological Department and the Archaeological Department had written to the collector stating that such collection was in contravention of the Ancient Monument Preservation Act and was illegal. However, the collector did not take any action.

The petition reads,
"Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the amount charged is not compulsory for everyone and the people who are in a hurry can pay and go for the darshan. However, the Trust has failed to answer that the persons who are poor even in hurry cannot afford to go and cannot pay an amount of Rs. 200/- per head and will end up standing in queue waiting for their turn and the people who are rich can pay the amount of Rs. 200/- and directly go for darshan."

As per the plea, after a long legal dispute, the Supreme Court had ordered the constitution of a trust of the 9-member committee for managing the temple.

Referring to economic objectivity and constitutional scheme in a public temple the petition states that:

“The Constitutional scheme of things, does not permit any citizens to believe that economic affordability could be a tool to divide the citizenry for a darshan in a public temple. The temple is a public temple and in the first place, the Devasthan is not doing any service. At the best it maintains and administers the temple built for public benefit, for which they receive or raise revenue by other means. The Economic consideration, some of the citizens are given the privilege of proximate or speedy Dharshan and those can't afford shall have distant dharsan, itself is an affront to the equality before law as enshrined under article 14 of the constitution of India.”

The Division Bench of Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice DG Dige asked the petitioner to point out the sections and provisions under which the fee charged is prohibited and posted the case for 30 November for further hearing.

The bench opined, “If someone is asking for preference then the extra fee can be charged with necessary arrangements”.

Moreover, the bench stated that it was not convinced by the arguments made by the petitioner. "You can do social work in a better way," the bench said to the petitioner.