Court holds dispute between hotel association and monasteries not a genuine public interest litigation; directs authorities to monitor constructions and visitor records strictly
In a significant judgment dated September 9, 2026, the Patna High Court (Division Bench comprising Mr. Sudhir Singh, A.C.J. and Rajesh Kumar Verma, J.) dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the Bodh Gaya Hotel Association seeking to restrain various monasteries in Bodh Gaya from using their premises for commercial purposes and alleging illegal constructions violating Municipal and Building Bye-Laws.
The petitioner, represented by Ms. Shweta Anand, contended that certain monasteries were conducting commercial activities including operating star-category hotels, thereby compromising the religious sanctity of these institutions and causing revenue loss to the government. They sought directions for enquiry and action against unauthorized constructions and for enforcing a 2016 State Government review meeting's orders.
The State and respondents, including the monastery representatives, countered that the monasteries are religious and spiritual establishments adhering to Buddhist traditions such as Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana. Accommodation and facilities offered by monasteries to monks, pilgrims, and followers were described as incidental and integral to their religious functions rather than commercial ventures. The State informed the Court that local authorities had already conducted inquiries into constructions, found some compliant with sanctioned plans and took action where deviations existed.
Upon careful consideration, the Court observed that although the petition was styled as a PIL, the dispute essentially involved competing interests between hotels and monasteries rather than a genuine public interest matter. The Court emphasized that invoking PIL jurisdiction to regulate particular establishments' activities under the guise of statutory enforcement was impermissible.
Consequently, the Court dismissed both writ petitions. However, it clarified that this dismissal would not prevent competent authorities from taking lawful action against any violations of building and municipal laws. The Court mandated that all constructions, additions, or alterations in monastery premises must strictly comply with applicable Municipal Laws, Building Bye-Laws, Building Rules, land-use regulations, and sanctioned plans.
Further, recognizing the influx of visitors from India and abroad, the Court directed monastery managements to maintain detailed registers of all visitors and residents within their premises. These registers must include proper identification, such as government-issued ID and residential proof for Indian nationals, and passports or travel documents for foreigners, to be available for inspection by authorities. Monasteries were also instructed to comply with all safety norms to prevent accidents and ensure the security of residents and pilgrims.
The judgment reiterates the delicate balance between preserving the sanctity of religious institutions and enforcing statutory regulations while cautioning against misuse of the PIL mechanism for resolving private disputes.
Bottom Line:
Public Interest Litigation - Petition dismissed as not genuine Public Interest Litigation - Relief sought essentially concerns competing interests of hotel association and monasteries, not a matter of genuine public interest.
Statutory provision(s): Municipal Act, Building Bye-Laws, Building Rules, land-use regulations
Bodhgaya Hotel Association v. State of Bihar, (Patna)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2977272
