Maheshwar’s brother moves court, claims stake in Raghunath temple

Vijay Arora

Shimla, August 11

Maheshwar Singh’s younger brother Karan Singh, Minister for Cooperative and Ayurveda, has filed an application before the high court for impleading him as party in the case filed by the HLP president Maheshwar Singh against the taking over the Raghunath temple at Kullu by the government.

Interestingly, when the decision was being taken Karan Singh was present in the Cabinet meeting. During the course of hearing it was informed to the court that Cabinet minister Karan Singh has filed an application before the court for becoming party in this case. After hearing the matter, a division bench comprising Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia granted one-week time to Maheshwar Singh for filing reply to the application and listed the matter for further hearing on August 20. 

In his application, Karan Singh has contended that he is also co-owner of the property and for the proper adjudication of the case he may be allowed to join the proceedings. Himachal Lokhit Party president and Chief Kardar (caretaker) of Lord Raghunath temple Maheshwar Singh had filed a petition before the court challenging the decision of the government move to take over the Raghunath temple in Kullu. 

In its earlier order, the court had restrained the state from taking any action on the notification issued by it for taking over the management of Raghunath temple. Apart from this, the court had also stayed the operation and execution of the notice issued by Deputy Commissioner, Kullu on July 26 whereby Maheshwar Singh was requested to hand over all temple properties to the chairman of Raghunath Temple Trust Sultanpur, Kullu.

Maheshwar contended that the temple of Lord Ragunath was built and established by Late Raja Jagat Singh and it’s a private property. It was further contended that the state cannot take over this property by issuing notification without following the principal of natural justice.

The petitioner further maintained that the action of the state was illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of the Constitution of India.