IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition (PIL) No.126 of 2014

Mohd. Salim ……. Petitioner

Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others … Respondents
Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Standing Counsel, for the Union of India.
Mr. N.P. Shah, Standing Counsel, for the State of Uttarakhand.

Dated: March 20, 2017

Coram: Hon’ble Rajiv Sharma , J.

Hon’ble Alok Singh, J.

Per: Hon. Rajiv Sharma, J.

Vide judgment dated 5.12.2016, this Court

had issued the following mandatory directions to the
respondents: -

“1. Respondent nos. 3 to 7 are directed to evict

the respondent nos. 8 & 9 from the Government land
within a period of twelve weeks from today.

2. The respondent no.11 i.e. Central Government

is directed to take final decision on the basis of the
settlement arrived at between the State of Uttar Pradesh
and the State of Uttarakhand, regarding the division of
assets/properties on 02.02.2016, within a period of
three months from today.

3. The Central Government is also directed to

constitute a Ganga Management Board, under Section 80
of the Act, and make it functional within a period of three
months. The Central Government shall also induct State
 2

of Uttarakhand as member of the Upper Yamuna Board

within three months.

4. The mining in river bed of Ganga and its

highest flood plain area is banned forthwith. The District
Magistrate and Sub-Divisional Magistrate shall be
personally responsible to implement this direction.”

2. In sequel to order dated 6.3.2017, Mr.

Virendra Sharma, Senior Joint Commissioner, Ministry of
Water Resource & Ganga Rejuvenation, is present in
person along with the records.

3. The Court has a very meaningful interaction

with Mr. Virendra Sharma. He has made a startling
revelation that despite long correspondence, neither the
State of U.P. nor the State of Uttarakhand is cooperating
with the Central Government for the constitution of
Ganga Management Board.

4. According to Section 80(2)(b) of the U.P. Re-

organization Act, 2000 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the
Act’), two full time members, one from each of the
successor States, are to be nominated by the respective
State Government as Members of the Ganga Management
Board. As per Section 80(4)(c) of the Act, four part- time
members, two from each of the successor States are to be
nominated by the respective State Government. The
Chairman is to be appointed by the Central Government
in consultation with the successor States along with two
representatives.

5. Mr. Virendra Sharma, Sr. Joint Commissioner,

has undertaken that even if there is no cooperation from
both the State Governments, the Ganga Management
Board shall be constituted within a period of eight weeks
 3

from today by appointing the Chairman and two

members by the Central Government. However, he
further submits that in case the State Governments
respond within two weeks from today, the Members shall
also be appointed as nominated by the successor States
as per Section 80 of the Act to Ganga Management
Board.

6. As far as direction no.1 in judgment dated

5.12.2016 is concerned, respondent nos.3 to 7 were
directed to evict the respondent nos.8 and 9 from the
Government land within twelve weeks from the date of
order. However, Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate for the
petitioner, apprises that respondent nos.8 and 9 have not
been evicted till date. Consequently, there shall be a
direction to the District Magistrate, Dehradun to evict the
respondent nos.8 and 9 from the government land within
seven days from today, if there is no stay granted by the
Hon. Apex Court, failing which the District Magistrate,
Dehradun shall be deemed to be put under suspension
for not evicting the respondent nos.8 and 9.

7. Vide judgment dated 5.12.2016, the Central

Government was directed to take a final decision on the
basis of the settlement arrived at between the State of
U.P. and State of Uttarakhand regarding the division of
assets/properties on the basis of Memorandum of
Understanding (MoU) dated 2.2.2016. Mr. Virendra
Sharma, however, submits that the MoU arrived at
between the States of U.P. and Uttarakhand on 2.2.2016
has not been supplied to the Central Government.

8. Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the

Chief Secretaries of both the States to supply the MoU
 4

arrived at on 2.2.2016 to the Central Government within

72 hours. Thereafter, the Central Government shall take
its final decision within 10 weeks.

9. The Court shows its serious displeasure about

the manner in which the State of U.P. and State of
Uttarakhand have acted in this matter. It is a sign of
non-governance. We need not remind the State
Governments that they are bound to obey the orders
passed by the Central Government failing which the
consequences may ensue under Article 365 of the
Constitution of India. Consequently, the Chief
Secretaries of the State of U.P. and State of Uttarakhand
are directed to cooperate with the Central Government in
a right earnest manner for the constitution of Ganga
Management Board by appointing the Members, failing
which it shall be open to the Central Government to
constitute the Ganga Management Board without the
Members of the successor States, as directed
hereinabove.

10. The extraordinary situation has arisen since

Rivers Ganga and Yamuna are loosing their very
existence. This situation requires extraordinary measures
to be taken to preserve and conserve Rivers Ganga and
Yamuna.

11. Rivers Ganges and Yamuna are worshipped by

Hindus. These rivers are very sacred and revered. The
Hindus have a deep spiritual connection with Rivers
Ganges & Yamuna. According to Hindu beliefs, a dip in
River Ganga can wash away all the sins. The Ganga is
also called ‘Ganga Maa’. It finds mentioned in ancient
Hindu scriptures including ‘Rigveda’. The river Ganga
 5

originates from Gaumukh Glacier and River Yamuna

originates from Yamnotri Glacier.

12. In 1969 (1) SCC 555 their Lordships of Hon.

Supreme Court in ‘Yogendra Nath Naskar v. Commission
of Income-Tax, Calcutta’ have held that a Hindu idol is a
juristic entity capable of holding property and of being
taxed through its Shebaits who are entrusted with the
possession and management of its property. In
paragraph no.6, their Lordships have held as under: -

“6. That the consecrated idol in a Hindu temple is a juridical

person has been expressly laid down in Manohar Ganesh's
case, I.L.R. 12 Bom. 247 which Mr. Prannath Saraswati, the
author of the 'Tagore Lectures on Endowments' rightly enough
speaks of as one ranking as the leading case on the subject, and
in which West J., discusses the whole matter with much
erudition. And in more than one case, the decision of the Judicial
Committee proceeds on precisely the same footing (Maharanee
Shibessourec Dehia v. Mothocrapath Acharjo 13 M.I.A. 270 and
Prosanna Kumari Debya v. Golab Chand Baboo L.R. 2
IndAp145 Such ascription of legal personality to an idol must
however be incomplete unless it be linked of human guardians for
them variously designated in Debya v. Golab Chand Baboo L.R. 2
IndAp145 the Judicial Committee observed thus : 'It is only in an
ideal sense that property can be said to belong to an idol and the
possession and management must in the nature of things be
entrusted with some person as shebait or manager. It would seem
to follow that the person so entrusted must be necessity be
empowered to do whatever may be required for the service of the
idol and for the benefit and preservation of its property at least to
as great a degree as the manager of an infant heir'-words which
seem to be almost on echo of what was said in relation to a church
in a judgment of the days of Edward I: 'A church is always under
age and is to be treated as an infant and it is not according to law
that infants should be disinherited by the negligence of their
guardians or be barred of an action in case they would complain
of things wrongfully done by their guardians while they are under
age' (Pollock and Maitland's 'History of English Law', Volume I,
483.”

13. In 1999 (5) SCC 50, their Lordships of Hon.

Apex Court in the case of “Ram Jankijee Deities & others
v. State of Bihar & others” have held that Images
according to Hindu authorities, are of two kinds: the first
is known as Sayambhu or self-existent or self-revealed,
while the other is Pratisthita or established. A Sayambhu
 6

or self-revealed image is a product of nature and it is

Anadi or without any beginning and the worshippers
simply discover its existence and such images do not
require consecration or Pratistha but a manmade image
requires consecration. This manmade image may be
painted on a wall or canvas. God is Omnipotent and
Omniscient and its presence is felt not by reason of a
particular form or image but by reason of the presence of
the omnipotent: It is formless, it is shapeless and it is for
the benefit of the worshippers that there is manifestation
in images of the Supreme Being. It was further held that
the deity/idol are the juridical person entitled to hold the
property. In paragraph nos.14, 16 and 19, their
Lordships have held as under: -

“14. Images according to Hindu authorities, are of two kinds: the first is
known as Sayambhu or self-existent or self-revealed, while the other is
Pratisthita or established. The Padma Purana says: "the image of Hari
(God) prepared of stone earth, wood, metal or the like and established
according to the rites laid down in the Vedas, Smritis and Tantras is
called the established images...where the self- possessed Vishnu has
placed himself on earth in stone or wood for the benefit of mankind, that
is styled the self-revealed." (B.K. Mukherjea -Hindu Law of Religious and
Charitable Trusts: 5th Edn.) A Sayambhu or self-revealed image is a
product of nature and it is Anadi or without any beginning and the
worshippers simply discover its existence and such images do not require
consecration or Pratistha but a manmade image requires consecration.
This manmade image may be painted on a wall or canvas. The Salgram
Shila depicts Narayana being the Lord of the Lords and represents
Vishnu Bhagwan. It is a Shila - the shalagram form partaking the form of
Lord of the Lords Narayana and Vishnu.
16. The observations of the Division Bench has been in our view true to
the Shastras and we do lend our concurrence to the same. If the people
believe in the temples' religious efficacy no other requirement exists as
regards other areas and the learned Judge it seems has completely
overlooked this aspect of Hindu Shastras - In any event, Hindus have in
Shastras "Agni" Devta; "Vayu" Devta - these deities are shapeless and
formless but for every ritual Hindus offer their oblations before the deity.
The Ahuti to the deity is the ultimate - the learned Single Judge however
was pleased not to put any reliance thereon. It is not a particular image
which is a juridical person but it is a particular bent of mind which
consecrate the image.
19. God is Omnipotent and Omniscient and its presence is felt not by
reason of a particular form or image but by reason of the presence of the
omnipotent: It is formless, it is shapeless and it is for the benefit of the
worshippers that there is manifestation in images of the Supreme Being.
'The Supreme Being has no attribute, which consists of pure spirit and
 7

which is without a second being, i.e. God is the only Being existing in
reality, there is no other being in real existence excepting Him - (see in
this context Golap Chandra Sarkar, Sastri's Hindu Law: 8th Edn.). It is
the human concept of the Lord of the Lords - it is the human vision of
the Lord of the Lords: How one sees the deity: how one feels the deity and
recognises the deity and then establishes the same in the temple upon
however performance of the consecration ceremony. Shastras do provide
as to how to consecrate and the usual ceremonies of Sankalpa and
Utsarga shall have to be performed for proper and effective dedication of
the property to a deity and in order to be termed as a juristic person. In
the conception of Debutter, two essential ideas are required to be
performed: In the first place, the property which is dedicated to the deity
vests in an ideal sense in the deity itself as a juristic person and in the
second place, the personality of the idol being linked up with natural
personality of the shebait, being the manager or being the Dharam karta
and who is entrusted with the custody of the idol and who is responsible
otherwise for preservation of the property of the idol. The Deva Pratistha
Tatwa of Raghunandan and Matsya and Devi Puranas though may not
be uniform in its description as to how Pratistha or consecration of image
does take place but it is customary that the image is first carried to the
Snan Mandap and thereafter the founder utters the Sankalpa Mantra
and upon completion thereof, the image is given bath with Holy water,
Ghee, Dahi, Honey and Rose water and thereafter the oblation to the
sacred fire by which the Pran Pratistha takes place and the eternal spirit
is infused in that particular idol and the image is then taken to the
temple itself and the same is thereafter formally dedicated to the deity. A
simple piece of wood or stone may become the image or idol and divinity
is attributed to the same. As noticed above, it is formless, shapeless but
it is the human concept of a particular divine existence which gives it the
shape, the size and the colour. While it is true that the learned Single
Judge has quoted some eminent authors but in our view the same does
not however, lend any assistance to the matter in issue and the
Principles of Hindu Law seems to have been totally misread by the
learned Single Judge.”

14. In AIR 2000 SC 1421, their Lordships of Hon.

Supreme Court in the case of ‘Shiromani Gurudwara
Prabandhak Committee, Amritsar v. Shri Som Nath Dass &
others’ have held that the concept ‘Juristic Person’ arose
out of necessities in the human development-
Recognition of an entity as juristic person- is for
subserving the needs and faith of society. In paragraph
nos.11, 13 and 14, their Lordships held as under: -

“11. The very words "Juristic Person" connote recognition of an entity to

be in law a person which otherwise it is not. In other words, it is not an
individual natural person but an artificially created person which is to be
recognised to be in law as such. When a person is ordinarily understood
to be a natural person, it only means a human person. Essentially, every
human person is a person. If we trace the history of a "Person" in the
various countries we find surprisingly it has projected differently at
different times. In some countries even human beings were not treated to
be as persons in law. Under the Roman Law a "Slave" was not a person.
 8

He had no right to a family. He was treated like an animal or chattel. In

French Colonies also, before slavery was abolished, the slaves were not
treated to be legal persons. They were later given recognition as legal
persons only through a statute. Similarly, in the U.S. the African-
Americans had no legal rights though they were not treated as chattel.

13. With the development of society, 'where an individual's interaction

fell short, to upsurge social development, co-operation of a larger circle of
individuals was necessitated. Thus, institutions like corporations and
companies were created, to help the society in achieving the desired
result. The very Constitution of State, municipal corporation, company
etc. are all creations of the law and these "Juristic Persons" arose out of
necessities in the human development. In other words, they were dressed
in a cloak to be recognised in law to be a legal unit.
Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol. LXV, page 40 says:
Natural person. A natural person is a human being; a man, woman, or
child, as opposed to a corporation, which has a certain personality
impressed on it by law and is called an artificial person. In the C.J.S.
definition 'Person' it is stated that the word "person," in its primary
sense, means natural person, but that the generally accepted meaning of
the word as used in law includes natural persons and artificial,
conventional, or juristic persons.
Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol. VI, page 778 says:
Artificial persons. Such as are created and devised by human laws for
the purposes of society and government, which are called corporations or
bodies politic.
Salmond on Jurisprudence, 12th Edn., 305 says:
A legal person is any subject-matter other than a human being to which
the law attributes personality. This extension, for good and sufficient
reasons, of the conception of personality beyond the class of human
being is one of the most noteworthy feats of the legal imagination.... Legal
persons, being the arbitrary creations of the law, may be of as many
kinds as the law pleases. Those which are actually recognised by our
own system, however, are of comparatively few types. Corporations are
undoubtedly legal persons, and the better view is that registered trade
unions and friendly societies are also legal persons though not verbally
regarded as corporations. ... If, however, we take account of other
systems than our own, we find that the conception of legal personality is
not so limited in its application, and that there are several distinct
varieties, of which three may be selected for special mention...
1. The first class of legal persons consists of corporations, as already
defined, namely, those which are constituted by the personification of
groups or series of individuals. The individuals who thus form the corpus
of the legal person are termed its members....1
2. The second class is that in which the corpus, or object selected for
personification, is not a group or series of persons, but an institution.
The law may, if it pleases, regard a church or a hospital, or a university,
or a library, as a person. That is to say, it may attribute personality, not
to any group of persons connected with the institution, but to the
institution itself....
3. The third kind of legal person is that in which the corpus is some fund
or estate devoted to special uses - a charitable fund, for example or a
trust estate...
Jurisprudence by Paton, 3rd Edn. page 349 and 350 says:
 9

It has already been asserted that legal personality is an artificial creation

of the law. Legal persons are all entities capable of being right-and-duty-
bearing units - all entities recognised by the law as capable of being
parties to legal relationship. Salmond said: 'So far as legal theory is
concerned, a person is any being whom the law regards as capable of
rights and duties...
...Legal personality may be granted to entities other than individual
human beings, e.g. a group of human beings, a fund, an idol. Twenty
men may form a corporation which may sue and be sued in the corporate
name. An idol may be regarded as a legal persona in itself, or a particular
fund may be incorporated. It is clear that neither the idol nor the fund
can carry out the activities incidental to litigation or other activities
incidental to the carrying on of legal relationships, e.g., the signing of a
contract: and, of necessity, the law recognises certain human agents as
representatives of the idol or of the fund. The acts of such agents,
however (within limits set by the law and when they are acting as such),
are imputed to the legal persona of the idol and are not the juristic acts
of the human agents themselves. This is no mere academic distinction,
for it is the legal persona of the idol that is bound to the legal
relationships created, not that of the agent. Legal personality then refers
to the particular device by which the law creates or recognizes units to
which it ascribes certain powers and capacities." Analytical and
Historical Jurisprudence, 3rd Edn. At page 357 describes "person";
We may, therefore, define a person for the purpose of jurisprudence as
any entity (not necessarily a human being) to which rights or duties may
be attributed.

14. Thus, it is well settled and confirmed by the authorities on

jurisprudence and Courts of various countries that for a bigger thrust of
socio-political-scientific development evolution of a fictional personality
to be a juristic person became inevitable. This may be any entity, living
inanimate, objects or things. It may be a religious institution or any such
useful unit which may impel the Courts to recognise it. This recognition
is for subserving the needs and faith of the society. A juristic person, like
any other natural person is in law also conferred with rights and
obligations and is dealt with in accordance with law. In other words, the
entity acts like a natural person but only through a designated person,
whose acts are processed within the ambit of law. When an idol, was
recognised as a juristic person, it was known it could not act by itself. As
in the case of minor a guardian is appointed, so in the case of idol, a
Shebait or manager is appointed to act on its behalf. In that sense,
relation between an idol and Shebait is akin to that of a minor and a
guardian. As a minor cannot express himself, so the idol, but like a
guardian, the Shebait and manager have limitations under which they
have to act. Similarly, where there is any endowment for charitable
purpose it can create institutions like a church hospital, gurudwara etc.
The entrustment of an endowed fund for a purpose can only be used by
the person so entrusted for that purpose in as much as he receives it for
that purpose alone in trust. When the donor endows for an Idol or for a
mosque or for any institution, it necessitates the creation of a juristic
person. The law also circumscribes the rights of any person receiving
such entrustment to use it only for the purpose of such a juristic person.
The endowment may be given for various purposes, may be for a church,
idol, gurdwara or such other things that the human faculty may conceive
of, out of faith and conscience but it gains the status of juristic person
when it is recognised by the society as such.”
 10

15. In AIR 1972 Allahabad 287, learned Single

Judge of Allahabad High Court in case of ‘Moorti Shree
Behari ji v. Prem Dass 7 others’ has held that a deity can
sue as a pauper. In paragraph no.6, it was held as
under: -

“6. The question then that arises is why a deity who is juristic
person and can sue or be sued through its Pujari, Shebait or any
other person interested, cannot sue as a pauper? To my mind when
an incorporated limited company has been held by this Court
capable of suing as a pauper, a fortiori it follows that a deity can
also sue as a pauper. The learned Judge of the court below was in
error in explaining away the Full Bench decision of this Court in
the case of AIR 1959 All 540 (FB) (supra) on the observation that It
related to a joint stock company, hence not applicable. The court
below thus was in error in rejecting the application of the deity for
that reason.

16. With the development of the society where the

interaction of individuals fell short to upsurge the social
development, the concept of juristic person was devised and
created by human laws for the purposes of the society. A
juristic person, like any other natural person is in law also
conferred with rights and obligations and is dealt with in
accordance with law. In other words, the entity acts like a
natural person but only through a designated person, as their
Lordships have held in the judgments cited hereinabove, that
for a bigger thrust of socio-political-scientific development,
evolution of a fictional personality to be a juristic person
becomes inevitable. This may be any entity, living inanimate,
objects or things. It may be a religious institution or any
such useful unit which may impel the Courts to recognise it.
This recognition is for subserving the needs and faith of the
society. Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol.6, page 778 explains the
concept of juristic persons/artificial persons thus: “Artificial
persons. Such as are created and devised by human laws for the
purposes of society and government, which are called
corporations or bodies politic.” A juristic person can be any
subject matter other than a human being to which the law
attributes personality for good and sufficient reasons. Juristic
 11

persons being the arbitrary creations of law, as many kinds of

juristic persons have been created by law as the society require
for its development. (See Salmond on Jurisprudence 12th Edition
Pages 305 and 306). Thus, to protect the recognition and the
faith of society, Rivers Ganga and Yamuna are required to be
declared as the legal persons/living persons.

17. All the Hindus have deep Astha in rivers Ganga

and Yamuna and they collectively connect with these rivers.
Rivers Ganga and Yamuna are central to the existence of half
of Indian population and their health and well being. The
rivers have provided both physical and spiritual sustenance
to all of us from time immemorial. Rivers Ganga and Yamuna
have spiritual and physical sustenance. They support and
assist both the life and natural resources and health and
well-being of the entire community. Rivers Ganga and
Yamuna are breathing, living and sustaining the communities
from mountains to sea.

18. The constitution of Ganga Management Board is

necessary for the purpose of irrigation, rural and urban water
supply, hydro power generation, navigation, industries.
There is utmost expediency to give legal status as a living
person/legal entity to Rivers Ganga and Yamuna r/w Articles
48-A and 51A(g) of the Constitution of India.

19. Accordingly, while exercising the parens patrie

jurisdiction, the Rivers Ganga and Yamuna, all their
tributaries, streams, every natural water flowing with
flow continuously or intermittently of these rivers, are
declared as juristic/legal persons/living entities having
the status of a legal person with all corresponding rights,
duties and liabilities of a living person in order to
preserve and conserve river Ganga and Yamuna. The
Director NAMAMI Gange, the Chief Secretary of the State
of Uttarakhand and the Advocate General of the State of
 12

Uttarakhand are hereby declared persons in loco parentis

as the human face to protect, conserve and preserve
Rivers Ganga and Yamuna and their tributaries. These
Officers are bound to uphold the status of Rivers Ganges
and Yamuna and also to promote the health and well
being of these rivers.

20. The Advocate General shall represent at all

legal proceedings to protect the interest of Rivers Ganges
and Yamuna.

21. The presence of the Secretary, Ministry of

Water Resources, River Development & Ganga
Rejuvination is dispensed with.

22. Let a copy of this order be sent by the Registry

to the Chief Secretary of the State of Uttarakhand
forthwith.

(Alok Singh, J.) (Rajiv Sharma, J.)

Rdang