1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITIONS NO. 364/2004 & 425/2004 WRIT PETITION NO. 364/2004 1. Shri Bhagirath Pandharinath Gaonkar, major, r/o. Chopdem Village, Pernem Taluka, Goa. 2. Shri Guna N. Gaonkar, major, r/o. Caisua, Baddem, Bardez, Goa. .......... Petitioners. Versus. 1. Shri Vishwas S. Gaonkar, major, r/o. Madhlawado, Chopdem, Pernem, Goa. 2. Shri Vishnu N. Gaonkar, major, r/o. Borvanwaddo, Camurlim, Bardez, Goa. 3. The Administrative Tribunal of Goa, Panaji, Goa. 4. The Mamlatdar & Administrator of Devasthan, Pernem Taluka, Pernem, Goa. .......... Respondents. Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Sapna Mordekar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S. M. Walawaikar, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2 – absent. Ms. W. Coutinho, Government Advocate for respondents No. 3 and 4. 2 WRIT PETITION NO. 425/2004 1. Shri Vinayak Dharmaji Gaonkar, 2. Shri Ashok Dharmaji Gaonkar, 3. Shri Sudan Savalaram Gaonkar, 4. Shri Govardhan Savlaram Gaonkar, 5. Shri Anil Gangaram Gaonkar, All major, resident of Agarwada, Near Bhumika Temple, Chopdem, Pernem, Goa. ......... Petitioners. Versus. 1. State of Goa through the Chief Secretary, having its Office at Secretariat, Panaji, Goa. 2. Mamlatdar of Pernem/Administrator of Devasthan, Pernem Taluka, Pernem, Goa. 3 Mr. Gopal Rama Gaonkar, major, resident of Chopdem, Pernem, Goa. 4. Mr. Ladu Pangurang Gaonkar, major, resident of Chopdem, Pernem, Goa. 5. Mr. Vishnu N. Gaonkar, major, resident of Camurlim, Bardez, Goa. 6. Mr. Narayan S. Gaonkar, major, resident of Chopdem, Pernem, Goa. 3 7. Shri Bhagirath Pandharinath Gaonkar, major, r/o. Chopdem Village, Pernem, Goa. 8. Mr. Vishwas S. Gaonkar, major, resident of Chopdem, Pernem, Goa. 9. Mr. Ramdas Gaonkar, major, resident of Gudem, Siolim, Bardez, Goa. 10. Mr. Vishnu P. Gaonkar, major, r/o. Colvale, Bardez, Goa. 11. Mr. Vilesh M. Gaonkar, major, r/o. Revoda, Bardez, Goa. 12. Mr. Kiran Gaonkar, major, r/o. Revoda, Bardez, Goa. .......... Respondents. Mr. Shivan S. Dessai, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S. R. Rivonkar, Government Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & SANTOSH BORA, JJ. Date : 26th August, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per DHARMADHIKARI, J.) 1. In so far as Writ Petition No.364/2004 is concerned, we had 4 noted the submission of Shri Lotlikar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners that the petition is rendered infructuous and even the controversy has become academic, in our earlier order. On that day, none was present on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2. Even today, when the matter is called out, none appears for respondents No.1 and 2 although the name of their Advocate appears on Board. In the light of the subsequent developments and when the petitioners were allowed to participate in the election process and rather petitioner No.1 was elected as President of the Devasthan, we are of the view that the writ petition can be disposed off as the interim order of the Mamlatdar which is subject matter of the challenge before us does not survive. The order was passed on the basis of an interim order in Civil Application No.90/2002 in Writ Petition No.168/2001. 2. Mr. Lotlikar states that Writ Petition No.168/01 was placed before learned Single Judge of this Court and by a Judgment and Order dated 3.2.2006, this Court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to the proceedings before the General Body of Devasthan when it exercises power under Article 26 read with 250 of the Devasthan Regulations. Thus, the inclusion of the names of 79 persons/mahajans has gained finality. Once the writ petition is finally allowed, then, the interim order therein cannot be made foundation of the Mamlatdar's order. In any event, that interim order 5 also does not survive after the final Judgment in Writ Petition No. 168/2001. Consequently, the order of the Mamlatdar dated 6.2.2004 and that of the Administrative Tribunal dated 28.7.2004 do not survive in the light of the learned Single Judge's decision. The same, therefore, are quashed and set aside as being not surviving. In the light of this, the orders are quashed and set aside and the petition succeeds to this limited extent. All other issues, including legality and validity of the elections and particularly, petitioner No.1's election as President, are kept open for being raised in any other appropriate proceedings and the same do not stand concluded by this order. Needless to state that the subsequent events disclose that the issue of inclusion of 79 names is concluded 3. For the reasons assigned while disposing off Writ Petition No.364/04 and allowing it to a limited extent, writ Petition No.425/2004 also stands allowed, accordingly. There will be no order as to costs in both the petitions. A copy of the order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.168/2001 is kept on record of these petitions. S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. SANTOSH BORA, J. ssm.