MP HC Gives Officials 8 Weeks To Check Whether Two Temple Names Near Kings Restaurant Refer To One Shrine; FL-2 Licence Claim Remains Open

The petitioner, who operated Kings Restaurant at Mudgal Payga, Jagtap Ki Goth, Gwalior, sought directions concerning the identification and status of a nearby temple and the effect of its proximity on his application for an FL-2 licence.

He contended that the temple he identified as Radha Krishna Mahadev Temple was distinct from Shri Radhakrishan Mahadev Temple recorded in the Mafi Aukaf Register, which the respondents relied on in support of their action.

The State relied on the register and a spot inspection/Panchnama dated 30 January 2026, which recorded a temple approximately 30 metres from the restaurant.

The petitioner filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct the competent authority to verify material factual matters relevant to the challenged administrative action.

It required the authority to consider relevant official records and conduct a proper spot inspection where necessary, provide the parties a reasonable opportunity to present their claims and supporting material, and issue a reasoned and speaking order.

The Court referred to applicable legal provisions and rules governing the matter but did not specify or interpret them; it cited no precedent.

The competing descriptions of the temple and the respondents’ reliance on the Mafi Aukaf Register and the Panchnama left unresolved whether the temple near the restaurant was the registered temple or a different one.

Because both the temple’s identity and its distance from the restaurant were material to the respondents’ action, the Court considered that the existing material did not warrant a final conclusion.

It therefore directed a comprehensive verification using the register, Panchnama, relevant maps and departmental records, together with a spot inspection if required, and required measurement particulars and the parties’ submissions to be recorded in a reasoned order.

It directed the competent authority to identify and verify the temples, determine and record their respective distances from Kings Restaurant, hear the petitioner and respondents, and pass a reasoned order within eight weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order.

The respondents must then act or reconsider their action, as applicable, in accordance with law and the authority’s findings.

Pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.