LAWS(MPH)-2013-1-255

SHIVKUMAR Vs. STATE OF M.P

Decided On January 22, 2013
SHIVKUMAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF M.P Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is a Hanuman temple in village Bhojpura, Tahsil Niwari, District Tikamgarh. About 4.624 hectares of agricultural land is also attached to the temple which is under the management of its Pujari and used for the maintenance of temple. The petitioner was appointed as Pujari of that temple by the Sub -Divisional Officer, Niwari, vide order dated 14.12.1984, Annexure P3. Several complaints were, however, made in the year 2001 by the villagers against the petitioner regarding mismanagement of the temple property. Gram Sabha of village Pratappura took cognizance of the complaints and vide resolution dated 28.8.2001 removed him as Pujari. The Gram Sabha also appointed one Awdhesh Pratap Tiwari as Pujari in place of the petitioner.

(2.) AGGRIEVED with the resolution, the petitioner filed a revision before respondent no.1 Collector, District Tikamgarh, who issued notices to all and even called for the report from Police Station Orchha. The Station Officer of the police station in his report confirmed the allegations of mismanagement and irregularities made against the petitioner. He in his report also stated that not one villager wants the petitioner to continue as Pujari. Interestingly, even the villagers appeared in a large number before respondent no.1 and pleaded that the petitioner may not be made as Pujari. Respondent no.1 although by his order dated 28.3.2002 held that the Gram Sabha had no authority to pass the resolution of removing the petitioner as Pujari, he, having regard to the serious allegations and resentment of the villagers against the continuance of petitioner, dismissed the revision. The petitioner thereafter filed another revision before respondent no.2 Additional Commissioner, Division Sagar, who too dismissed the same vide order dated 30.1.2006. It is in this background the petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of orders dated 28.3.2002 and 30.1.2006.

(3.) THE first submission of petitioner is that since he was appointed as Pujari by the Sub -Divisional Officer, the Gram Sabha had no authority to remove him. According to the petitioner, as this position has also been upheld by respondent no.1, the latter ought to have allowed the revision. In reply, the learned Government Advocate has referred to the circular dated 25.1.2001, Annexure R2, of the State Government by which power to appoint Pujari which was earlier conferred on the Sub -Divisional Officer vide circular dated 10.2.1987 was modified and the power was conferred on the concerned Gram Sabhas. Circular dated 25.1.2001 clearly states that henceforth the power to appoint Pujari is conferred on the concerned Gram Sabhas. Therefore, once a Gram Sabha is conferred with a power to appoint Pujari, it can safely be held that, unless otherwise provided, the Gram Sabha also has the power to remove the Pujari. In the present case, the petitioner has been removed after coming into existence of the circular dated 25.1.2001. The Gram Sabha was, thus, competent to remove the petitioner.