KAILASHNARAYAN DUBEY Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Pujari of Shri Ram janki Temple of village Rani, Tahsil Bhitarwar, District Gwalior preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against the resolution passed by Gram Panchayat (Annexure P/3, whereby it was unanimously decided to discontinue him as Pujari. On the strength of said resolution of Gram Panchayat, after giving show cause notice to the petitioner, the Sub-Divisional Officer passed the order dated 27.8.2010(Annexure P/2). The petitioner filed an appeal against the order dated 27.8.2010 (Annexure P/2) before the Collector. The said authority by order dated 21.2.2011 (Annexure P/9) quashed the order of Sub-Divisional Officer dated 27.8.2010 on the ground that the matter was fixed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 6.8.2010. On the said date no further date was fixed but on 19.8.2010 the Sub-Divisional Officer fixed the matter for orders on 27.8.2010 and passed the order which cannot be said to be in accordance with law. It is further held that the allegations made against the petitioner were required to be proved by the respondents and in absence of recording evidence by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the charges cannot be said to be proved. The appeal was allowed by the Collector with a direction that the petitioner shall provide the entire account statement (Income & Expenditure) to the authorities and the same shall be audited. The Collector directed a limited enquiry for the purpose of deciding the income and expenditure of Pujari. The petitioner assailed the order dated 2.12.2011 to the extent he was directed by the Collector to produce the income-expenditure statement to assess his income. The respondent-Panchayat preferred a revision which was registered as Case No. 22/10-11/Revision. The petitioner's appeal and respondent's revision were analogously heard and decided by common order. The Commissioner agreed with the resolution of Gram Panchayat and affirmed the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and quashed the order passed by the Collector. The main grievance of the petitioner is that he has a right to continue as Pujari and this right is infringed and taken away without following the principles of natural justice. Shri N.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without giving a charge sheet and without providing adequate opportunity of hearing he has been discontinued. Learned counsel vehemently attacked the finding in resolution (Annexure P/3) that the petitioner is earning Rs. 5.00 lacs per year. He submits that there is no basis for such a finding. Learned counsel further submits that he was not permitted to examine the witnesses whose statements were recorded behind his back. He further submits that his sons who were accused in an offence under section 376 IPC were acquitted and, therefore, this cannot be a reason for his discontinuance. By placing reliance on Annexure P/10 dated 27.1.2011 Shri Gupta submits that appeal lies from the order of Collector to the Commissioner and the respondents have preferred a revision and not an appeal and, therefore, the same could not have been entertained. By placing reliance on 1999 RN 392 (State of MP and others vs. Mandir Shri Khande Rao), Shri Gupta submits that this Court directed the State to frame Rules and Regulations governing the conditions of service and other rights of Pujari but the respondents have not done anything. Hence, in absence of any procedure laid down, the petitioner could not have been discontinued in the manner the respondents have done.

(2.) Per Contra, Shri V.K. Bharadwaj, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Raja Sharma, would submit that the petitioner is not a "person aggrieved". To elaborate, Shri Bharadwaj submits that a litigant can be said to be a "person aggrieved" only when his any legal, constitutional, vested or statutory right is infringed or taken away. The petitioner has no legal right to continue as Pujari and, therefore, he is not a "person aggrieved". Learned senior counsel relied on Union of India v. Trustees of Major Maharaj Harisingh Benefit of Defence Services Personnel Charitable Trust and others, 2005 AIR(Raj) 250; Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India vs. Devi Ispat Ltd. and ors., 2010 AIR(SCW) 5935; State of Rajasthan and others vs. Daya Lal and others, 2011 2 SCC 429 and Sarvesh Patel vs. State of MP and others, 2012 1 MPHT 37 in this regard. Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim and others, 1984 AIR(SC) 38 is pressed into service to show that this Court should not entertain a writ petition in absence of necessary ingredients warranting interference.

(3.) Smt. Nidhi Patankar, learned Government Advocate supported the orders, Annexures P/1, P/2 and P/3. Learned State counsel submits that a great confidence and faith is reposed by Gram Panchayat in Pujari. The conduct of Pujari should be above board and without there being any iota of doubt regarding his conduct, performance and duty etc. She submits that the petitioner's sons were accused in an offence of rape and in such circumstances the Gram Panch, yat has taken a right decision after having satisfied itself. The said unanimous decision is not liable to be interfered with by this Court.