Wah Taj! Wah lies! wah Jihad!

Submitted by Ravi Ranjan (India), Nov 10, 2010 at 09:34

When one hears Taj one recalls monument Taj.

As fed on lies , people know nothing true about it.

It was a Hindu Temple and the present Disputed and illegal Structure is built on Hindu Temple that was pulled down by Jihadis few Centuries back.

--------

COURT NO. 34

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 36818 OF 2004

Institute of Rewriting Indian History & Anr. ------------------------Petitioner

Versus

Union of India & Ors. ---------------------------------------------Respondents

Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.

(By The Court)

This Writ petition has been filed as a Public Interest Litigation seeking the relief of declaration in the nature of mandamus for notifying that Taj Mahal was not built by Shahjahan; remove all the notices displayed by the Archeological Survey of India showing Taj Mahal premises crediting Shahjahan as its creator and further desist from writing /publishing/proclaiming/ propagating and teaching about Shahjahan being the Author of Taj Mahal and stop and discontinue the free entry in Taj Mahal premises on Friday in the week. A further direction has been sought that the authorities be further directed to open the locks of upper and lower portions of the four- storied building of Taj Mahal having number of rooms; to remove the bricked up walls built later blocking such rooms therein; and further to bring out the idols and inscriptions hidden in the Taj Mahal by Shahjahan 's order and declare the same as a Hindu Temple.

We have heard Shri Y. K. Saxena, learned Counsel for the petitioner at length and Sri K.C. Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the averment made in the petition as well as supplementary affidavit.

Shri Saxena, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has vehemently submitted that originally, there was a Hindu Temple over which by raising superstructures, the Taj Mahal was built by Shahjahan . Thus , in fact, a Hindu temple was converted into a "Majar". In support of his contention, he has taken us through literature, mainly, written by Shri P. N. Oak and the same include" The Greatest Historical discovery of Modern Times- The Taj Mahal is a Temple Palace" published by Hindi Sahitya Sadan, 2003 Edition, " Taj Mahal – Tejo –Mahalaya Shiva Mandir Hai" 1998 Edition, published by the same publisher; Fatehpur seekri Ek Hindu Nagar", Agra Ka Lal Kila Hindu Bhawan Hai" in Hindi 1998 Edition;, " Some Blunders of Indian Historical Research" 2003 Edition; Thatta Islamic Architecture" Written by Professor Ahmad Hasa Dani, Professor, Emerritus Quaid- I – Azam University, Islamabad, published by Institute of Islamic History. Culture & Civilization, Islamabad, Pakistan, 'Manu Smirit', and on the basis of the same, he tried to convince us that us is entitled for the aforesaid relief.

On the other hand, Shri K.C. Sinha, leaned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petition raises disputed questions of facts; it is neither desirable nor feasible to decide the factual controversy in writ jurisdiction and the petition can not be said to be in Public Interest. He, therefore, submitted that the petition should not be entertained and should be dismissed.

We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the voluminous literature submitted by Shri Saxena.

We are , however of the considered opinion that petition raises disputed question of facts, which can not be adjudicated upon in a Writ Jurisdiction. We therefore declined to entertain this petition and dismissed it with the liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum, if so advised.

21. 02. 2005 Sd. Dr. B. S. Chauhan J.

Sd. Dilip Gupta, J.

AHA

Chief Justice's Court

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.62161 of 2009

Khoya Paneer Cream Milk Vikreta Welfare Society

through its Secretary

Versus

Union of India and others

Hon'ble C.K. Prasad, C.J.

Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.

In this writ application, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of

mandamus declaring the provision of Prevention of the Food and

Adulteration Act, 1954 on account of permitting the use of

Recombined Milk, Toned Milk, Skimmed Milk, Condensed Milk,

Milk Powder, Skimmed Milk powder, Infant Milk food to its citizen,

as defined in A.11.01.02 to A. 11.02.18 in Appendix B under rule 5

Prevention of the Food and Adulteration Rules, 1955, in context of the

definition of the Milk under A.11.01.01 and the provisions of Rule 44

of Prevention of the Food and Adulteration Rules, 1955, as ultra vires

to the article 14, 19, 21, 38, 39 and 41 as well as article 51-A of the

petitioner's farmers rights in our constitution and is there obsolete,

redundant and non-existent to the implications on account of the

whole sale and production of the skimmed, condensed milk powder

within the definition of the adulterated milk for the consumption of

the citizens.

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus the

adequate guide lines to the respondents for dealing with the menace of

the synthetic milk and discourage the use of skimmed milk powder for

the production of the milk products. There must be the check and

balance upon the indiscriminate use of the skimmed powder milk as it

may be disproportionate to the consumption and thereby providing a

complete abrogation and subjugation to the production of the natural

milk in the market otherwise the same may be classified as irrational

classification which is prohibited under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the

Constitution of India. The same is prohibited under the directive

2

principles of the State Policy and as such this Hon'ble Court may

tear the veil behind such discrimination between the poor farmer

and a multinational company.

iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus

declare the provision Permitting the sale of skimmed milk powder

and the condense milk as violative of the provision of natural milk

in The Prevention of Adulteration Act, 1954 as unconstitutional and

ultra vires to the constitution of India as the said provisions are

redundant, obsolete and based on irrational classification on

account of the fact that now the industry of the milk product have

been commercialized by the use of schemed and condensed milk

sold to the public by the multinational companies and thereby

resulting into demoralization to the people indulged into business of

the animal husbandry.

iv. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus

direction as to prevent the violation of the provisions of The

Prevention of Cruelty Act, 1960, Wild Life Protection Act, 1972,

The Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986, Water (Prevention And

Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Municipal Law meant for the

protection of the society from obnoxious biodegradable substance

like Caracas and Sewerage problem due to ruthless killing of the

animals by the butchers in discriminatory resulting in contravention

to the provisions of sections 428 and 429 of Indian Penal Code or to

issue any other suitable order or direction which this Hon'ble Court

may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

We have heard Mr. Yogesh Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the

petitioner at a great length. He has also referred to a large number of

decisions of the Supreme Court. He also insists that reason be recorded and

every judgment on which reliance is placed, be discussed.

We are of the opinion that the relief sought for in the present

application is not fit to be granted. In sum and substance, petitioner's

attempt is to ban production of various kinds of Milk i.e. toned, skimmed

3

etc. so that petitioner's member produce "natural milk" which would stop

killing of animals.

We are of the opinion that in the light of the relief sought for, no

detailed reason is required to be given. We wonder, how, in exercise of the

power of judicial review, we can stop the production of milk of the kind

enumerated above, in the absence of law.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHBAD

BENCH AT LUCKNOW

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 2809 OF 2006.

(Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)

District : Raibareilly

Ravi Kant Khare, (Baba Ji) S/o Sri Rama Kant Khare, Journalist/Writer/Publisher and President of Sarva Hitkari Seva Sansthan (unfegistered Society of elite citizens, scholars, Advocates and Sriters), R/o D. S. – 13, Nirala Nagar, Lucknow – 226 020.

………. Ptitioner.

Versus

1. Union of India through its Secretary of Human Resources Ministry Govt. of India, New Delhi.

2. Election Commission of India, through chairman, Election Commission of India, New Delhi.

3. State Election Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.

4. Smt. Sonia Gandhi alis Sania Malno of Turin, Italy W/o Late Sri Rajiv Roberto "Gandhi" President of National Congress Party, 10, Jan Path, New Delhi.

Hon'ble Jagdish Bhalla, J

Hon'ble B. B. Agarwal, J

Heard Sri Awadhesh Kumar learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Siddharth Dhaon, learned counsel for the respondents.

There is a race to come in limelight by short cuts method and the present petition is one such example. Bye-election of parliamentary seat at Rai Bareli is almost at a fag end today. However, at this stage the petitioner has filed a writ petition challenging the nomination of opposite party no. 4 for contesting the election of Rai Bareli parliamentary seat. The petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to decide the matter relating to the disqualification of respondent no. 4 pertaining to her adherence and allegiance to the foreign State, namely, Italy. He had also prayed that Union of India be directed to produce the books namely "The Nehru Dynasty" written by Sri K. N. Rao, Reminiscences of "Nehru Age" written by his long time Private Secretary, Sri M. O. Mathai and the book written by his long time Private secretary, Sri M. O. Mathai and the book written by Sri Mohammad Yunus "Persons, Passion and Politics" for the perusal of the court to confirm the authenticity of the Article (Annexure no. 4 to the writ petition) published by the Hindu Writer's Forum.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".