A Delhi court has allowed a right to privacy plea by a resident of a housing society in Rohini and directed the administrator of the residential complex to demolish a temple built on a water tank on the premises within two months.
Pradeep Chaddah, District and Sessions Judge (North), Rohini courts, passed the direction on an appeal by N.C. Jain, an elderly resident of Dhruva Apartments, and asked The Delhi Pradesh Cooperative Group Housing Society (P) Ltd., administrator of the housing complex, to choose another spot within or outside it and shift the deities inside the temple within two months.
The appellant in his appeal against the order of a Civil Judge submitted that due to the use of loudspeaker, musical instruments and conduct of rituals on a routine basis at the temple, he was not able to live in peace and have a sound sleep at night.
The Civil Judge had also allowed Mr. Jain’s plea for shifting the temple built illegally on the water tank, but made compliance of the order subject to The National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Second Act, 2011, which restricts the rights of the local authorities from taking action against unauthorised and illegal constructions.
But Mr. Chaddah said that the law was not applicable to the construction of the temple as it did not conform to the safety standards in force.
The court also issued directions for an immediate stop to the use of loudspeaker and musical instruments at the temple till shifting it.
“Within two months from the date of the judgment, the respondents should choose another site within or outside the society. After observing all the religious rituals and according due respect, the statues of the deities should be shifted to that chosen spot and the construction raised on the water tank should be removed,” the court said.
It directed the North Delhi Municipal Corporation to implement the order and the SHO concerned to ensure compliance of it. The court also imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on two residents of the complex and the society, who, according to the appellant, had built the temple illegally, to be paid to the appellant.
