As per case facts, a suit concerning the management of the Shri Giriraj Temple, pending for over twenty-five years, resulted in the Trial Court appointing a Seven-Member Committee of Receivers, ... including three advocates. The High Court, in a Contempt Application, set aside this appointment, criticizing the practice of appointing advocates as Receivers in Mathura temples, citing conflicts of interest, and directed the appointment of a single Receiver with religious and administrative experience. The Appellant, a member of the set-aside committee, challenged the High Court's directions on grounds of lack of locus standi, and the High Court's alleged creation of an arbitrary classification against advocates. The question arose whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the appointment of a Seven-Member Committee, including advocates, and directing the appointment of a Receiver with specific religious and administrative qualifications for a long-pending temple dispute, and whether this Court should intervene in a separate, but related, Public Interest Litigation concerning the safety and management of Shri Banke Bihari Temple. Finally, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order to set aside the Committee's appointment, agreeing on the need to expedite such long-pending suits and to appoint a Receiver with relevant administrative, historical, religious, and social experience, preferably from the Vaishnav Sampradaya, while separately exercising its power to allow the State to utilize the Banke Bihari Temple's funds to acquire land for a public safety corridor, provided the land remains in the Deity's name