Bhabananda Goswami Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/6

¶2

GAHC010224132017

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/7595/2017

¶5

BHABANANDA GOSWAMI SATRADHIKAR SRI SRI MAYAMORA PURANIMOTIA SATTRA, P.O. PANICHAKUA, DIST- JORHAT, ASSAM

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM and 5 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, CULTURAL AFFAIRS DEPTT., ASSAM, SACHIVALAYA, DISPUR, GHY-6

¶8

2:THE DIRECTOR OF ARCHAEOLOGY ASSAM AMBARI GHY-1 3:DEPUTY COMMISSIONER JORHAT AND CHAIRMAN CONSTRUCTION AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE DIST- JORHAT ASSAM 4:ASSAM SATTARA MAHASABHA HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT RAJABARI JORHAT REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT RAJABARI JORHAT-785014 5:SREE ARUN CHARANANDA GOSWAMI S/O- TRIGUNANANDA GOSWAMI R/O- BHURAKALA GAON P.O. PANICHAKUA PANICHAKUA

¶9

Page No.# 2/6

¶10

DIST- JORHAT ASSAM

¶11

6:SREE RAMANANDA GOSWAMI S/O SRI TRIGUNANANDA GOSWAMI R/O- PURANIMATI SAATRA P.O. PANICHAKUA DIST- JORHAT ASSA

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.H DEKA, MR.S BORTHAKUR,MR.B D GOSWAMI

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MS. S NEWAR (R-6),MR. S KATAKI (R-4)

¶14

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Date : 05.05.2025

¶17

Heard Mr. B. D. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. U. Das, learned Additional Government Advocate, appear for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3. Mr. S. K. Kakoti, learned counsel appears for the respondent No. 4 and Mr. A. Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. V. V. Thanyu, appears for the respondent No. 6. None has appeared for the respondent No. 5.

¶18

2. The issue arising in the present proceeding is with regard to the manner of disbursement of an amount of Rs: 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty lacks) sanctioned by the Directorate of Archaeology, Assam, for development of “Sri Sri Mayamora Puranimati Sattra,” Panichakuwa, Pulibor.

¶19

3. In the writ petition, the petitioner has projected that he is the 17^th Sattradhikar of the said Sattra and has further contended that the followers of the Sattra by constituting

¶20

Page No.# 3/6

¶21

a committee in the name and style of “Sri Sri Mayamora Puranimati Sattra Samaj Unnayan Samiti”, have been working for the development of the sattra.

¶22

4. The amount being so sanctioned for the said Sattra by the Directorate of Archaeology, Assam vide the communication dated 24.04.2017 the jurisdictional District Commissioner required the petitioner as the Sattradhikar of the said Sattra to attend a meeting convened on 22.05.2017, in his office for the purpose of discussion on development of Sattras.

¶23

5. It is projected in the petition that the petitioner attended the said meeting as the Sattradhikar of “Sri Sri Mayamora Puranimati Sattra”, Panichakuwa, Pulibor. It is further projected in the writ petition that the amounts so sanctioned vide the communication dated 24.04.2017, were released to the other Sattras, mentioned in the said communication, however the amount sanctioned in favour of “Sri Sri Mayamora Puranimati Sattra”, Panichakuwa, Pulibor, was not released by the District Commissioner on account of the fact that the respondent No. 5 herein, had also claimed to be the Sattradhikar of the Sattra. There being two claimants to the post of Sattradhikar of the Sattra, the District Commissioner withheld the amount sanctioned in favour of the “Sri Sri Mayamora Puranimati Sattra”, Panichakuwa, Pulibor under the “Sattra Development Scheme”.

¶24

6. The petitioner projects that he had approached the jurisdictional District Commissioner, by way of submitting representations requiring release of the amount involved to him, by considering that he is the Sattradhikar of the Sattra and such claim of the petitioner was also supported by the “Assam Sattra Mahasabha” (respondent No 4 herein), vide a communication dated 03.04.2017. It is the case of the petitioner that inspite of the above developments, the District Commissioner has not released the amount sanctioned under the “Sattra Development Scheme” to the Sattra and accordingly, the Sattra is suffering on account of non-execution of the developmental activities so required to be carried out therein.

¶25

7. The Directorate of Archaeology, Assam, having identified “Sri Sri Mayamora Puronimati Sattra” for release of an amount of Rs : 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lacks)

¶26

Page No.# 4/6

¶27

under the “Sattra Developmental Scheme” for carrying out various developmental scheme in the Sattra, it is not disputed by the parties that the said amount is required to be released to the Sattra, however, the said amount was not released by the District Commissioner, only on the ground that there were two persons who had claimed to be the Sattradhikar of the Sattra.

¶28

8. When the matter was taken up for consideration the parties to the proceedings have submitted that the developmental activities required to be carried out in the Sattra cannot be delayed any further, and the same is required to be expeditiously executed.

¶29

9. This court had vide order dated 21.04.2025, required the parties to the proceeding, more particularly, the petitioner and the private respondents to receive instructions as to whether, they would be agreeable to appear before the jurisdictional District Commissioner, for resolution of the issue involved and for a decision as to the manner in which the amount sanctioned in favour of the Sattra, under the “Sattra Developmental Scheme” is to be released to it.

¶30

10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.4 and 6, have submitted that they are agreeable to approach before the District Commissioner for early resolution of the impasse occasioning in release of the amount sanctioned to the Sattra under the ”Sattra Developmental Scheme”.

¶31

11. In view of the above position, without entering into the merits of the matter, this Court requires the petitioner to approach the District Commissioner, by way of a fresh representation staking his claim for being released the amount sanctioned in favour of the Satra by the Directorate of Archaeology Assam, under the “Sattra Development Sachem” as the Sattradhikar of the Sattra.

¶32

12. The District Commissioner on receipt of such representation from the petitioner shall convene a meeting in the matter within 15 (fifteen) days thereafter. The District Commissioner for the purpose shall issue notices to the petitioner, the respondent No. 5 herein, as well as other stakeholders of “Sri Sri Mayamora Puronimati Sattra”. The District

¶33

Page No.# 5/6

¶34

Commissioner, at the first instance shall try to ascertain as to who is the Sattradhikar of the Sattra and it being so ascertained, the amount be released to the person so ascertained as the Sattradhikar of the Sattra in question.

¶35

13 . In the event the issue as to who is the Sattradhikar of the Sattra is not permissible to be so determined in a summary manner, the District Commissioner, shall endeavor to work out a modality for releasing the amount involved to the Sattra and on settlement of such modality, shall pass a speaking order in co-operating therein the modality along with the works required to be so executed in the Sattra and the person/ committee, under whose supervision the works would be so executed.

¶36

14 . After passing of the speaking order, the District Commissioner shall continue to monitor the execution of the work so involved.

¶37

15. In the event the Sattradhikar of the Sattra is not identified by the District Commissioner, the petitioner and respondent No. 5 are at liberty to take recourse to such measures, as may be permissible under Law for establishing their individual claim in the matter.

¶38

16. It is provided that the jurisdictional District Commissioner for the purpose of carrying out the exercise involved, in terms of the directions passed herein above, shall be at liberty to receive opinions from the “ “Assam Sattra Mahasabha” and the Director of Archaeology, Assam.

¶39

17. It is expected that the District Commissioner as wells as the stakeholders of “Sri Sri Mayamora Puronimati Sattra” shall endeavor to get the developmental activities in the Sattra carried out in the manner required with due and proper utilization of the amount sanctioned to the Sattra by the Directorate of Archaeology, Assam and for the said purpose the petitioner, respondent No. 5 and other stakeholders of “Sri Sri Mayamora Puronimati Sattra” shall extend their cooperation.

¶40

18. The petitioner is granted liberty to submit the representation in terms of the direction passed hereinabove, before the District Commissioner, Jorhat, on or before 26.05.2025.

¶41

Page No.# 6/6

¶42

19 . With the above observations and directions, the writ petitioners stands disposed

¶43

of.

¶44

JUDGE

¶45

Comparing Assistant

Bhabananda Goswami v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhabananda Goswami v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Car Servicing Center and Anr. Vs Megha Nidhi Dahal and 2 Ors.

Domon Longmailai Vs Sri Thai Tsho Daulagupu, Acs

Jagat Sing Teron Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

M/S Maa Transport Carriers and Anr. Vs Union of India and 6 Ors.

Amguri Naba Nirman Samity Vs Ms. Pankaj Yadav

Nabajyoti Bora and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.