Public infrastructure projects prevail where primary religious structures remain undisturbed and devotee access is adequately preserved.

The petitioner, claiming to be a public-spirited citizen and owner of a sweet shop near the Tehsil premises in Roorkee, filed a Writ Petition (PIL) seeking a mandamus to restrain the respondents from encroaching upon a temple’s premises

The petitioner alleged that the construction of a proposed automated car parking stand and its approach road would necessitate the demolition of the temple

Previously, the temple’s Secretary had filed a similar petition (WPMS No. 679 of 2023), which was disposed of after the Haridwar Roorkee Development Authority (HRDA) clarified that the main temple building would remain undisturbed

On March 18, 2025, the Division Bench directed the respondents to submit a formal plan ensuring that the ingress and egress of devotees would not be blocked

1. Whether the proposed construction of the parking stand and approach road would result in the demolition of the temple or infringe upon the rights and sentiments of the devotees

2. Whether there are sufficient grounds to entertain the PIL given the prior adjudication of the same grievance in a petition filed by the temple management itself

The court recognized the principle of balancing urban developmental needs with the protection of religious structures.

It emphasized that the "exponential growth in the number of vehicles" and resulting road congestion make the construction of "Modern Automated Parking" the "need of the hour" for public utility

The court relied on the factual undertakings provided by the Development Authority through written instructions and affidavits to determine if a project disproportionately interferes with private or religious rights

The Court evaluated the site plan and affidavit submitted by the Secretary of HRDA. It observed that the main temple building would not be disturbed; only a northern verandah, a priest’s residence, and a lawyer’s chamber would be affected to carve out the approach road

The Court found that the submitted map clearly demonstrated "ample space for ingress and egress for the devotees," thereby nullifying the petitioner’s claim regarding the obstruction of religious access

Furthermore, the Court noted that the temple authorities had already sought and received relief in a separate writ petition based on the same set of facts, where the court had held that the apprehension of demolition was "unfounded"

Consequently, the Court determined that the project aimed at decongesting city roads was in the public interest and did not unlawfully infringe upon the temple premises

Since the temple management's own prior litigation had already addressed these concerns and the current evidence showed the main structure was safe, the Court found no ground to interfere

The Writ Petition (PIL) was accordingly consigned to record and all pending applications were disposed of