MAHANT GOVIND PURI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who claims himself to be the Chief Priest and Mahant of a shrine 'Kamleshwar', on 7th March, 1989, approached this Court with this petition with the prayer that the notice dated 18th August, 1988, issued by the District Magistrate (Investigation Officer) calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the gross annual income as shown in Annexures I, II and III of the said communication should not be considered to be final for the purposes of being submitted to the Commissioner may be quashed. The further prayer was that a writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued commanding the Commissioner Garhwal Division and the District Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal from interfering with the work of the petitioner as Mahant/Chief Priest of the said shrine. The burden of the song in the writ petition was that in the purported exercise of power under Section 4 of the U.P. Hindu Public Religious Institutions (Prevention of Dissipation of Properties) Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the State Government had not appointed any Commissioner and the Commissioner of the Garhwal Division could not act as a Commissioner under the Act without an appointment having been made under Section 4. Therefore, the Commissioner, Garhwal Division, acted without jurisdiction in appointing the District Magistrate as the Investigation officer. Consequently, the entire proceedings fell through.

(2.) A counter -affidavit has been filed by Sri Ashwani Kumar Upreti, a Lipik in the office of the Collector, Pauri Garhwal. The material averments in the said affidavit are these. The State Government had appointed the Commissioner of the Garhwal Division as the Commissioner. The reply given by the petitioner to the aforesaid notice dated 18th August, 1988, was considered and thereafter on 11th October, 1988, a statement was submitted by the Investigation Officer District Magistrate as contemplated under Section 6(2) of the Act. Acting upon the statement, the Commissioner on 4th January, 1989, purported to pass an order under Section 8 whereby he directed the District Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal to take measures for the protection of the properties of the shrine and manage the same.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY action has been taken by the Commissioner under Section 8(e). Admittedly the District Magistrate under the orders of the Commissioner took possession of the properties of the temple which included jewels, valuable Government securities etc. It is the respondents' case that these properties are in the custody of the District Magistrate.