SHANNUM PANDU PARAB GAUNKAR Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present Petition, the following points arise for determination :-

(2.) THE facts, in brief, relevant for the decision are that the petitioner is the Mahajan of the Temple of Shree Maya Kelbai and its affiliates. The bye-laws of Shree Maya Kelbai and its affiliates were approved by the Government by Order dated 22-10-1965 published in the Government Gazette dated 18th November 1965, Series I, No. 34. On 2nd November 1995, the Government by its Order published in the Official Gazette dated 6th November 1995, Series II, No. 31 dissolved the existing elected Committee of the said Temple and its affiliates and appointed a new Managing Committee till fresh elections are held, comprising of the respondents nos. 3 to 10. By the same Order dated 2nd November 1995, the said newly appointed Committee was directed to frame fresh bye-laws of the said Temple and its affiliates as per the model form of bye-laws of Devasthan circulated vide Memorandum No. CAB/TEMPLE-Bye-laws/POLICY-40/1985 dated 21st October 1978 and submit the same for the Government's approval within 90 days in terms of Article 428 of the Devasthan Regulations. Thereafter, extraordinary General Body meetings of the Mahajans of the said Temple were held on 25th January, 18th February, 3rd March and 17th March of the year 1996. However, the notices convening the said meetings were not published in the Government gazette. The first three extraordinary General Body meetings were convened specifically to amend the bye-laws. In the last extraordinary meeting held on 17th March resolution was passed approving new bye-laws and the same were submitted to the Government for its approval. Thereafter, the Government issued fresh Notification dated 2nd August 1996 published in Official Gazette of 2nd August 1996, Series II, No. 18whereby the last paragraph of the Notification dated 2nd November 1995 was sought to be substituted by a new paragraph. By the said substitution, the direction to frame fresh bye-laws in terms of Article 428 of the Devasthan Regulations was substituted with the direction to the Managing Committee to amend the existing bye-laws of the said Devasthan and perform all functions as per the Devasthan Regulations and the instructions issued by the Government from time to time.

(3.) ON the other hand, it is the case of the respondents that inspite of the Court orders directing the dissolved Committee of the said Devasthan to enroll various decree-holders in different civil suits to be the Mahajans of the said Devasthan, the dissolved Committee intended to proceed further with the election process by passing the rights of those decree-holders and without including their names in the list of Mahajans and illegally prohibiting them from participating in the election in total disobedience to the Court orders as well as direction issued by the authorities and, therefore, the Government was compelled to take necessary action in terms of provisions contained in Article 44(2) read with Article 45 of the said Devasthan Regulations. It is the contention of the respondents that after issuing the Order dated 2nd November 1995, the Mamlatdar issued notices dated 13th December 1995 to the president of the dissolved Committee as well as the newly appointed Committee to remain present in the office of the Mamlatdar to handover the management of the Office records, but the dissolved Committee failed to comply with the directions of the Mamlatdar. According to the respondents, the amendment can be made to the bye-laws in terms of the provisions contained in Section I in Chapter II of the Devasthan Regulations.