LAWS(BOM)-2006-2-104

GUNA GAONKAR Vs. ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL OF GOA

Decided On February 03, 2006
BAGIRATH P.GAONKAR Appellant
V/S
VISHWAS S.GAONKAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners challenge the order dated 21.5.2001 passed by the Administrative Tribunal, Goa in Devasthan Appeal No. 46/01 as being contrary to the provisions of law comprised under the Regulations governing Hindu Temples (Devasthans) of Goa, Daman & Diu in terms of Diploma Legislative No. 615 dated 30.3.1933 and amended by Diploma Legislative No. 1898 dated 29-5-1959 (hereinafter called as "the said Devasthan Regulations").

(2.) The few facts relevant for the decision are that:

(3.) Drawing attention to Articles 26, 250 and 255 of the said Devasthan Regulation, as well as Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in terms of the said provisions of law, the appeal against the order of the Mamlatdar or the Administrator appointed in place of the Administrative Committee, in relation to the objections raised in respect of inclusion or exclusion of the names of the capable members for being entitled to vote and contest the elections for the Managing Committee, has to be filed within 10 days and in case the aggrieved party fails to present such appeal within the period of 10 days, the General Body of the Devasthan does not enjoy jurisdiction to entertain or deal with such an appeal. In view of the specific provisions comprised under Section 29(2) and bearing in mind the provisions of the said Devasthan Regulations being a special statute dealing with the affairs relating to Devasthan in the State of Goa and the provisions of law comprised under Article 255 of the said Devasthan Regulations being specifically providing clear bar for entertaining an appeal preferred beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the said Devasthan Regulations, the provisions of the said regulations would prevail over the provisions of Limitation Act and the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 thereof would not apply to such proceedings. Attention was also drawn to the decisions in cases of Sakuru. v. Tanaji, 1985 22 ELT 327 Mohd. Ashfaq v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal U.P. and Ors., 1977 1 SCR 563 and Lachhman Das Arora v. Ganeshi Lal and Ors., 1999 AIR(SC) 3101 .