RAM DASS Vs. DHARAM DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution are, briefly, as follows:- On 26-6-1950, Mahant Bal Krishan Das of the Jagannath ji Temple at Nahan died. The Temple Committee of Nahan, under the chairmanship of Mr. Baldev Ram, then Deputy Commissioner, Sirmur, appointed the petitioner as Mahant of the said temple on 19-8-1950. This appointment was confirmed by the Himachal Pradesh Government in October, 1950. The petitioner's contention is that he has been performing his duties and managing the temple properties satisfactorily up to 23-9-1955, when he was relieved of his charge, by an order passed by the Collector of Sirmur district (respondent No. 4), purporting to be on behalf of the Himachal Pradesh Government, respondent No. 3. Sant Ramanand, respondent No. 2, has been appointed by respondent No. 3 as interim manager, pending the appointment of a new Mahant. Dharam Das, respondent No. 1, along with Sant Ramanand, respondent No. 2, had made a bid to oust the petitioner from his office by means of a suit for declaration and possession, which, how. ever, was dismissed by the Senior Subordinate Judge, Nahan, on 7-7-1954. That decision was confirmed, in appeal, by the District Judge of Sirmur on 28-6-1955. While non-suiting the plaintiffs, both the Senior Subordinate Judge as well as the District Judge, Nahan, had, however, made certain observations in their judgments, which went against the petitioner.

(2.) Under these circumstances, the petitioner claimed that he could not be evicted by an executive order passed by respondents 3 and 4. Ha contended that respondents 3 and 4 Had not even given him an opportunity to show cause, before he was removed from his office. The petitioner complains that his rights to property, granted by the Constitution, have been arbitrarily and summarily infringed. Hence, this petition under Article 220 of the Constitution, wherein I am requested to issue a writ to respondents 3 and 4, directing them to restore the petitioner to the office of Mahant and remove the interim manager.

(3.) The petition has been opposed by respondents 2, 3 and 4 on various grounds. The respondents' case is that the Senior Subordinate Judge, as well as the District Judge had held, on specific issues, that the appointment of the petitioner, as Mahant, was ab initio void and improper, since the power of appointment vested in the Central Government and not in the Himachal Pradesh Government. In removing the petitioner from the office of Mahant, respondents 3 and 4 only gave effect to the findings of the civil Courts. Pending the appointment of a new Mahant, in accordance with the findings of the Courts, the Collector of Sirmur district had taken the administration of the temple under his direct supervision. It was, categorically, denied that the petitioner had any 'fundamental right' to the office of Mahant. Consequently, there was no question of such right having been infringed. The appointment of a Mahant was within the discretion of the Central Government. Since the appointment of the petitioner by the Himachal Pradesh Government had been, found to be invalid by the civil Courts, it was considered expedient to remove him from that office. By means of a subsequent application dated 27-121956, on behalf of respondents 3 and 4, it was brought to the notice of this Court that in September, 1956, the President has delegated to the Lieutenant-Governor of Himachal Pradesh, powers to appoint a Mahant to the temple in question. It was, urged that the power of appointment would necessarily include the power of removal and, therefore, respondents 3 and 4 were well within their rights in removing the petitioner from his office, in pursuance to the findings of the Civil Courts. I was, therefore, requested to reject the petition.