SAUNSTHAN VETAL NACHINOLKAR NACHINOLWADA Vs. MAMLATDAR AND ADMINISTRATOR OF DEVALAYAS OF BICHOLIM TALUKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Padgaonkar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) Mr. Padgaonkar to begin with states that this is a petition filed by the General Body of the Devalaya or body of Mazania. In the entire petition, there is no averment that this is so. Even otherwise from the cause title, it does not appear to be so. Mr. Padgaonkar himself referred to Article 5 of Devasthan Regulation, which also speaks about bodies of members (mazanias) being represented at the Courts and public offices by their ordinary or special attorneys. This petition is not even instituted by the special attorney. There is no resolution produced on record by the General Body or Body of Mazania authorizing the petitioner to institute the present petition. Therefore, this is a serious issue about the very locus standi of the present petition to institute the petition.

(3.) Besides, it appears that this petition has been filed by the Managing Committee or rather by the President of the Devasthan. The elections to the Managing Committee are scheduled tomorrow i.e. 13/3/2022 at 10.30 a.m. There is no explanation in the petition as to how the Managing Committee can be said to be aggrieved by some additions or deletions from the voters' list. This is not a petition filed by any candidate who claims to be aggrieved. In any case, this matter is not pursued any further and the issue of locus standi can always be kept open.