SHRINATH GOSWAMI GOPINATH GOSWAMI BOTH SONS OF SRI SHYAM BIHARI GOSWAMI Vs. CIVIL JUDGE JUNIOR DIVISION SRI BUDHI SAGAR MISHRA PRESENTLY POSTED AS CIVIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been preferred by three petitioners claiming themselves to be the Shebait Goswamis who have right of worship and mananagement in the affairs of ancient Hindu Dedicated to Lord Krishna popularly known as . "Thakur Behariji Maharaj" established several centuries ago. The right to perform Sewa, Puja and Bhog at the temple is state to be the exclusive right of the Goswami sect of which the petitioners are the members. Initially the aforesaid right was exercised by three branches of the same sect who were entitled to perform the sewa of Shringar Bhog, Raj Bhog and Shayan Bhog. The Branch of the community which performed the sewa of Shringar Bhog became extinct whereas the families performing Raj Bhdg and Shayam Bhog continue to exist even today. On the extinctioin of the branch of the family which was performing Shringar Bhog, the other two branches who I performing sewa of Raj Bhog and Shayan Bhog have taken performance of the sewa of Shringar Bhog as well by turn. In the year 1938 differences arose between Goswamis of the aforesaid two branches of Raj Bhog and Shayan Bhog including the issue of distribution of the receipts of offering in the temple as result whereof a representative suit being Original Suit No. 156 of 1938 was filed for declaration of the rights of the paries on the issue raised therein In the said suit a decision was arrived at wherein the respective rights and claims of both the factions were settled defined and in order to further establish a smooth system for the management of the temple a scheme was drawn up and approved by the court which was part of the judgment and decree in the aforesaid suit and which scheme of management continues to govern the management of 'the'temple;' even today. The Scheme has been appended as Annexure~2 to the writ petition.

(2.) It appears that a committee was constituted under the aforesaid scheme against which a! complaint was made in the year 2002 and an application was moved before the Civil Judge, Junior Division Mathura for dismissing the committee and for appointment of a receiver. It is relevant to point out that under the said scheme the Munsif Magistrate, Mathura was conferred with certain powers under the aforesaid scheme to aid the management and perform certain I duties for managing the temple, which shall be discussed later on in this judgment. The Civil Judge, Junior Division, who now exercises the powers of the then Munsif Magistrate, proceeded to appoint a receiver. Later on, it is stated mat a committee was constituted pursuant to the election of the four members of both sects on 27.4.2003 and nomination of three members on 21.6.2003. A writ petition was filed in between and interim order was passed on 22.5.2003 whereby one of the members 'was restrained from participating in the committee which interim order was time bound till 28.7. 2003. In such a situation the committee could not function as; it, could not be constituted and a receiver was again appointed on 30th June 2003. The person who was appointed, as receiver was one of the nominated membeo nominated by the receiver on 2l.6.2003. Certain other orders were passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, which became subject matter of challenge before this Court and, writ petitions, which are referred to in paragraph 11 of the present writ petition.

(3.) The reference to the aforesaid orders is necessary inasmuch as the question which has been raised herein shall directly affect the fate of other writ petition. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 10.3.2005 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division on an application alleged to have been moved by Sri Dinesh Kumar Mani. A perusal of the said order indicate that the Civil Judge Junior Division to the conclusion, that since the committee of management.could not be constituted bn account of the on going dispute trie rival factions of Goswamis, nor is mere any hope I of formation of the committee in future as such in order to provide an effective management to manage the affairs of the temple the respondent no. 3 was being appointed as Secretaiy-curn-Manager, as per clause Adrninistration, who Shall discharge the function as referred to in the said order The said order has been challenged on merits complaining of being without authority. in law and in complete violation of the of the scheme. The respondent no. 2 has put in appearance and filed a counter affidavit to which a rejoinder affidavit has also been filed and preliminary objection has been raised with regard to the maintainability of the writ |petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The matter was heard by me on the said preliminary issue and orders were reserved on 20.4.2005.