SUYOG AAFLE Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the appellant is that a "Parwana" was issued in favour of forefather of petitioner appointing him as "Pujari" in Mandir Shri Omkareshwar Mahadev and Shri Harihareshwar Mahadev, situated in Tahsil Isagarh district Ashok Nagar. After the death of forefather Late Govind Guru, the appellant's father became Pujari. THEreafter the appellant's father was selected and appointed in Government service and, therefore, he preferred an application to mutate the name of the appellant in place of his father. Consequently, by order dated 14.9.2006 the appellant was appointed as Pujari.

(2.) RESPONDENT No.4 preferred an appeal against the appointment of appellant and took objection that neither the father of appellant nor the appellant is in a position to do "Seva-Puja" in the temple. It is also prayed by respondent No.4 that he be appointed as Pujari in place of the appellant. The appellate authority/Collector decided the matter by order dated 10.2.2010. The Collector opined that the appellant has a hereditary right to continue as Pujari as per the "Parwana" and he was rightly appointed as Pujari. The appeal of respondent No.4 was rejected. He then filed second appeal before Additional Commissioner, which was registered as Case No. 149/2009-10/Appeal. In the second appeal it is stated that the present appellant's father was appointed as Pujari but the father of present appellant was posted in a Government service at a far of place and it was humanly impossible for him to look after the affairs of the temple. Consequently, "Puja-Aradhna, Bhog, Arti" etc. of the temple were not taken care of by present appellant's father. The temple was in a dilapidated condition in absence of proper care. It is further stated in the appeal that for the purpose of appointment of Pujari there were two applications pending before the authorities. One application was preferred by respondent No.4 seeking his own appointment whereas another application was preferred by the father of present appellant. It was stated that in the fitness of things both the applications should have been heard analogously by the authorities. The appointment of present appellant was assailed on the ground that he was studying in Madhav Engineering College in B.E. (Electronics) (Last Year) and he never even visited the temple. It is further alleged that the present appellant always remained out of Isagarh in relation to his studies and, therefore, he is not fit to be appointed as Pujari.

(3.) PER Contra, Shri Pravin Newaskar, learned Dy. Government Advocate for State and Shri Dharmendra Naik, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 supported the order passed by the writ court.