Three Writ Petitioners challenged an Order permitting temple renovation by a Managing Committee that violated Devasthan Regulations. The Court noted the Administrator imposed strict financial safeguards and, finding no prima facie evidence of misappropriation, dismissed the petition.
Petition stands rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO. 123 OF 2015
WP-123-15
-2-
Ibrampur, Pernem Goa.
….. Petitioners
V e r s u s
WP-123-15
-3-
Mr. J. J. Mulgaonkar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. P. Faldessai, Addl. Government Advocate for the Respondent nos. 1 to 3 and 9. Mr. A. Kansar, Advocte for the Respondent nos. 4 to 8.
Coram :- F. M. REIS, K. L. WADANE, JJ. th Date : 15 March, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per F. M. REIS, J.)
Heard Shri J. J. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, Mr. P. Faldessai, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent nos. 1 to 3 and 9 and Mr. Kansar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 4 to 8.
WP-123-15
-4-
WP-123-15
-5-
by the Respondent nos. 4 to 8 opposing the said Petition. The Writ Petition was thereafter disposed of on 16.06.2014 on the statement by the Respondent no. 2 that the proceedings initiated would be concluded within two months. The Respondent no. 2 concluded the inquiry on 14.08.2014 and prepared a report, inter alia, holding that the Respondent nos. 4 to 8 had acted in violation of Article 143 to 148 of the Devasthan Regulation and they had violagted the law. Thereafter, the Respondent no. 9 wrote a letter to the Respondent no. 2 to only pass an Order that henceforth the Respondent nos. 4 to 8 will follow the Devasthan Regulations and accordingly directed the Respondent nos. 4 to 8 to strictly follow th Devasthan Regulations. In the meanwhile, during the pendency of the Petition, there was further development whereby the permissions were sought from the Respondent no. 2 for post facto approval of the renovation of the temple which came to be allowed by the impugned order which was sought to be quashed by the Petitioners after amending the Petition.
WP-123-15
-6-
Devasthan Regulations was passed without giving a hearing to the Petitioners and, as such, stands vitiated. Learned Counsel further submits that thereafter the Respondent nos. 4 to 8 sought post facto permission for the renovation of the temple who was erroneously granted by the Administrator of Devasthan by Order dated 27.03.2015. The learned Counsel as such pointed out that the impugned Orders be quashed and set aside.
WP-123-15
-7-
the temple has been authorised or permitted by the Administrator of Devasthan. Whilst granting such permission, the Administrator imposed condition which reads
thus :
WP-123-15
-8-
On perusal of the said conditions, we find that adequate safeguards have been taken by the Administrator whilst granting such permission. There are no allegations, prima facie, of misappropriation by the Petitioners and, as such, we find that there is no case made out by the Petitioners for any interference in the impugned decisions by the authorities in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. No doubt, Respondent nos. 4 to 8 ought to have followed the Devasthan Regulations before carrying out the renovation activities but, however, considering the view taken by the Administrator in the larger interest of the devotees, we find that the question of interfering in in such impugned decision would not at all be justified.
7. Subject to the above, the Petition stands rejected.
K. L. WADANE, J. F. M. REIS, J.
arp/*
WP-123-15
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere in the Administrator's decision to grant permission for the renovation of a temple after a breach of regulations.
Shri Rajaram Vishnu Gawas and others
State of Goa
The Mamlatdar of Pernem
The Collector, North Goa District
Shri Devi Santer or Sateri Devasthan of Ibrampur
Shri Rajaram Madhu Gawas and others
F. M. Reis
K. L. Wadane
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
