AJAY KUMAR SHARMA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma has filed this appeal under section 19 (3) of the Himachal Pradesh Hindu Public Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1984 (hereinafter called the Act) against the order dated 2 -6 -1991 conveyed by the Temple Officer of Chintpurni.

(2.) The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the appellant is a hereditary trustee of the Temple (Mata Chintpurni Ji) and as such was included as trustee and was allowed to perform Puja and other religious ceremony in the Temple in accordance with the past custom and usages. The appellant has stated that the Temple Officer i e. respondent No. 2 served the impugned order dated 21 -6 -1991 on the appellant and was banned in the Temple premises. He has taken the plea that debaring his entry in the Temple has violated the liberty granted under Article 25 of the Constitution of India Another plea taken by him is that neither any opportunity was ever afforded to him nor any show cause notice was ever served upon him. He also stated that the allegation attributed to him is without any substance since no inquiry was ever made regarding the stealing away of the Golden Umbrella from the Temple.

(3.) We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and also the District Attorney, who appeared on behalf of the respondents. The learned District Attorney argued that the Commissioner is competent under section 19 (I) (d) of the Act to remove and dismiss the trustee or the Pujari of any Hindu public religious institution and charitable endowment He also stated that the Deputy Commissioner, Una, has been appointed as the Commissioner of the Temple (Mata Chintpurni Ji). He also stated that the case regarding stealing away of the Golden Umbrella by the appellant had been registered on 1C -3 -1991. It was after this that the Deputy Commissioner, Una convened a meeting of the Temple Committee and passed a resolution for banning the entry of the appellant No doubt, the Commissioner is competent to remove or dismiss the trustee under section t9 (1) (d) of the Act but proviso to this section states that no trustee or Pujari shall be removed or dismissed by the Commissioner under this section unless he has been given reasonable opportunity of being heard. The perusal of record reveals that no opportunity was provided to Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, appellant when the order dated 21 -6 -1991 was served upon him. Thus the order, which was conveyed by the Temple Officer is bad in law since opportunity to the appellant has not been provided at all. As a result, the appeal filed by Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, appellant is accepted and the case is remanded to the Deputy Commissioner, Una, who is the Commissioner of the Temple for providing opportunity to the appellant of being heard before passing any order. To be communicated. Appeal allowed.