1 Shri Devalay Vikas Trust,Devali, Udaipur vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO.755/08) Dated : 26th August,2008. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Dr.P.S.Bhati, for the appellant. BY THE COURT :-(PER HON'BLE SANGEET LODHA,J.) 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 14.7.08 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner-respondent no.4 herein has been allowed, order dated 23.11.07, passed by the Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Government of Rajasthan directing the handing over of the management and control of “Neemuch Mata Temple” situated at village Devali, district Udaipur to the appellant herein, has been quashed and it has been further directed that instead of the appellant, the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department shall control and maintain the said temple, permitting the writ petitioner-respondent no.4 herein to perform "seva puja" of the deity in the temple. 2. In nutshell the relevant facts are that a temple known as “Neemuch Mata Temple” , situated at village Devali , district Udaipur is about 450 years old temple founded by the people belonging to the Kayasth community, in particular the 2 Bhatnagars. The function of regular worship and “seva puja” in the temple has been entrusted since long to the people belonging to the Gameti community . It is stated that since the construction of the temple by its founders , the ancestors of the writ petitioner, who belong to Gameti community were performing the “seva puja” and presently , the “seva puja” in the temple is being performed by the writ petitioner with the help of his family members. It is stated that after independence, the management and control of the temple has been undertaken by the Devasthan Department of the Government of Rajasthan under the category of “direct government charge” , however, the worship and “seva puja” of the temple continued with the petitioner's ancestors. Suffice it to say that the petitioner and his family members are enjoying hereditary rights of “seva puja” in the temple. 3. The State Government has framed a policy notified vide order dated 11.9.97 for handing over of the management and control of those temples which were managed and controlled by the Devasthan Department in the category of “direct government charge” to the registered private institutions on the conditions enumerated in the said order. The appellant Trust preferred an application dated 22.3.06 before the respondent no. 2 i.e. Commissioner, Devasthan Department, for taking over the control and management of the temple in question in terms of 3 the aforesaid policy decision of the State Government. One Dr.Mahendra Shrimali , Chairman of Om Bhakti and Sadhna Trust, Udaipur also preferred an application for taking over the management and control over the temple in question. As per the policy of the State Government as contained in Annexure R/1, before taking a decision to hand over the management and control over the temple to the private institution, comments of Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Udaipur were requisitioned by the Commissioner and a notice inviting objections from the general public was published in the newspaper dated 22.5.06. In pursuance thereof, the writ petitioner alongwith her family members submitted their objections before the respondent no.2 as contained in Annexure P/4 annexed with the writ petition. It was inter alia contended on behalf of the writ petitioner that the persons representing the appellant Trust intend to grab the management and control of the temple in question only to serve their selfish end. It was further submitted that if it is at all necessary to hand over the management and control of the temple to any private institution then, the same may be handed over to “Neemuch Mata Navyuvak Mandal Vikas Sansthan”, a society registered with the Registrar Societies, Udaipur. The objections were also submitted by the members of the Bhatnagar community claiming that the temple of “Neemuch Mata” was constructed by their ancestors 4 and the function of “seva puja” was entrusted to Gameti community, which is performing the said function progeny after progeny. It was further stated therein that the said temple is a place of their religious faith and therefore, the same should not be handed over to any institution or organisation without their knowledge and consent. Precisely, the said community objected the handing over of the temple in question to the appellant Trust. Besides, the objections were also raised by some other worshipers and the residents of village Devali. 4. After considering the objections raised ,the Commissioner, Devasthan Department ,vide order dated 23.11.07 , handed over the temple in question on supurdagi under the aforesaid policy decision of the State Government to the appellant Trust for a period of ten years on the conditions incorporated therein. 5. The learned Single Judge has found that the Commissioner, Devasthan was not justified in giving the temple on supurdagi to the appellant Trust for a period of ten years when there is no allegation /complaint against the writ petitioner either of mismanagement or not performing regular ""seva puja"" of the deity. The learned Single Judge observed that one Shri Roop Singh, Chairman of the Vikas Devalaya Trust, Udaipur, the appellant herein projected himself to be Pujari of the temple, whereas he hails from Rajput community and had never been worshiping the deity in the temple or performed the “seva puja” 5 in the temple as Pujari. The learned Single Judge observed that even in the order impugned in the writ petition, it has been held that the act of performing regular “seva puja”, naivaidhya bhog, utsav etc. would continue with the petitioner as right inherited by Gameti family yet, the direction for handing over of the temple on supurdagi to the respondent no.4 for a period of ten years have been issued. Accordingly, the writ petition has been allowed in the terms as indicated above. 6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge has seriously erred in allowing the writ petition and restoring the control and management of the temple in question with the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan , Udaipur. The learned counsel submitted that the State Government having taken a policy decision to hand over the temples , which are under the direct control and management of the Devasthan Department for their better management and maintenance , the decision taken by the competent authority after due consideration of the objections raised by various persons,cannot be faulted with. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the writ petitioner has only claimed the right to worship and “seva puja” of the deity in the temple in question, which has not been disturbed by passing of the impugned order therefore, she cannot be permitted to object the handing over of the temple in question to the appellant Trust. The learned 6 counsel while drawing attention of this Court to the policy decision of the government as contained in Annexure R/1 dated 11.9.97, submitted that there are sufficient safeguard incorporated in the policy decision and if the Trust to which the management of the temple is entrusted, commits any breach of the conditions or in any manner mismanages the affairs of the temple then, the order handing over the control and management can always be revoked . The learned counsel submitted that bare perusal of the order impugned in the writ petition Annexure 8 dated 23.11.07 goes to show that the objections raised have been duly considered and the competent authority being satisfied that for the better management and maintenance of the temple, it is appropriate to hand over the said temple to the appellant Trust , the decision as aforesaid has been taken, which cannot be faulted with. 7. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and perused the record. 8. A bare perusal of the policy decision of the State Government, as contained in Annexure R/1 goes to show that as per condition no.1 incorporated therein, the temple managed and controlled by Department of Devasthan, Government of Rajasthan, shall be given on supurdagi and in adoption only to the Trust of the community to which the temple belongs. It is not disputed before this Court that the temple in question was 7 constructed by Kayasth community particularly, the Bhatnagars and they are the persons mainly worshipers of the deity in the temple. It is also not in dispute that after the construction of the temple by the Kayasth community, the functions of regular worship and “seva puja” were entrusted to the persons of the Gameti community, who are discharging the said functions progeny after progeny. There is nothing on record to show that the temple under the control and management of the Devasthan Department is not being properly managed or maintained. There is no allegation against the writ petitioner and his family members regarding any mal practices or mismanagement in performance of their duties of worship and “seva puja”. 9. Admittedly, on behalf of Bhatnagar community so also by the writ petitioner and other members of the Gameti community objections were raised against the handing over of the control and management of the temple to the appellant Trust. It is pertinent to note that the learned Commissioner have noticed the objections raised on behalf of inter alia the Bhatnagar community and the writ petitioner, however, while considering the objections of the Gameti community, it has been observed that the objections raised by them are only confined to protection of their right to perform “seva puja” of the deity in the temple. Thereafter, it has been observed that on any irregularity being committed in performing the duties or on 8 unbecoming conduct of the members of the community in performance of the duty , the Devasthan Department can always take necessary action. A bare perusal of the order impugned goes to show that the objections raised by the said community specifically against the persons at the helm of affairs of the appellant Trust have not even been considered by the learned Commissioner. 10. Similarly, while considering the objections raised by the Bhatnagar community , it has been observed that the Bhatnagar community, who worship the deity as their “Kuldevi” wants protection of their ancestral right to worship and to perform special “seva puja” and decoration/ornamentation of the deity and further wants that the temple should not be handed over to any private institution without their consent. As a matter of fact, from the perusal of the order, it is manifestly clear that the learned Commissioner has failed to consider the objections raised by the said community in their entirety and objectivity, keeping in view the true spirit of the policy decision taken by the State Government. 11. There is yet another important aspect of the matter, which needs to be noticed. Admittedly, the appellant Trust has been registered on 21.3.06 wherein, Roop Singh s/o Jai Singh has been named as Chief Trustee/President. The application for handing over of the control and management of the temple in 9 question in terms of the policy decision of the State Government was preferred by the appellant Trust on 22.3.06. It appears that there was resentment amongst the Bhatnagar community and the Gameti community against the handing over the management and control of the temple in question to the appellant Trust and therefore, on 9.9.06, a joint meeting of both the aforesaid communities and the representative of the appellant Trust was convened wherein, a decision was taken that in the management committee of the temple, seven members of each party shall be included. From the minutes of the said meeting , which has been placed on record as Annexure P/6, it appears that the name of Roop Singh , the President of the Trust and Roop Singh s/o Oak Singh were included amongst the representative of Pujari family whereas, they had never been entrusted to perform the function of worship and “seva puja” of the deity in the temple. Thus, the intentions of the persons who are at the helm of affairs of the appellant Trust are apparent on the face of record. This aspect of the matter though, referred in the order, has been brushed aside by the learned Commissioner while taking decision to hand over the control and management of the temple. Surprisingly, the learned Commissioner while taking a decision to hand over the management and control of the temple to a private Trust, which was constituted just a day before the application seeking control and management of the 10 temple was preferred, did not even care to inquire about the antecedents of the persons constituting the Trust, its financial status and other relevant aspects of the matter so as to ascertain as to whether the said Trust is at all in position to manage and administer the affairs of the temple effectively and efficiently to the satisfaction of the worshipers . 12. As noticed above, as per the condition no.1 of the policy decision as contained in Annexure R/1 dated 11.9.97,the temples, which are managed and controlled by the Department of Devasthan shall be handed over on supurdagi or in adoption only to the Trust Committee of the particular community to which the temples belong.Therefore, the question of the handing over of the temple to any other Trust represented by other community, ignoring the legitimate claim of the community to which temple belongs stands ruled out. In our opinion, the management of the affairs of the temple and protection of its property, is a pious function and therefore, while taking a decision to hand over its management and control to the private institution under a policy decision taken by the State Government, the authority concerned should always proceed with the great care and caution and should always endeavour to hand over its management and control to the persons, who are better equipped for managing it in accordance with the wishes of founder or the community or denomination to which the 11 temple belongs. 13. In our view, the order impugned passed by the Commissioner, Devasthan Department in perfunctory manner, runs contrary to the true spirit of the policy decision of the State Government, which cannot be countenanced by this Court. Accordingly, the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge setting aside the order impugned in the writ petition, does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. 14. In the result, the special appeal fails , it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (SANGEET LODHA),J. (NARAYAN ROY)CJ. Aditya/-