MAHANT SHIV GIR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present case, after the petitioner prepared, signed, verified and submitted the register to the Commissioner under sub -section (2) of section 6 of the Himachal Pradesh Hindu Public Religious Institutions Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), no enquiry appears to have been held under sub -section (3) of the said section. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, having regard to the nature of entries made in the register, it was expedient and necessary to hold an appropriate enquiry in consonance with the principles of natural justice, if any alterations, omissions or additions were to be made in the register. In other words, the claim(s) advanced by the petitioner, if proposed to be rejected, were required to be enquired into by affording to him a reasonable opportunity of establishing such claim(s) by leading evidence, if he so desired, and by controverting the evidence, if any, to the contrary procured by or in possession of the Commissioner and by affording him, through a counsel if he so desired, an opportunity of presenting his case orally (and supplemented by written arguments, if submitted) to the Commissioner on the basis of such evidence and in light of the legal provisions. Since the decision on the question(s) raised may affect or tend to affect his civil rights and also right to property, a reasoned order must be passed. No such steps appear to have been taken in this case.

(2.) Under the circumstances, at this stage it is expedient in the interest of justice to direct the competent authority to hold an enquiry under subsection (3) of section 6 of the Act in accordance with law and in light of the observations made in the course of this order. Under sub -section (3) of section 6, the enquiry is required to be held by the Commissioner, that is, the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district. The Court finds, however, that the Deputy Commissioner has filed a detailed affidavit -in -reply to the petition reflecting a specific stand on the material issues in controversy between the parties. It would not be in consonance with the rules of natural justice, therefore, that the enquiry should be held by the same authority. The Court, therefore, directs that the enquiry, in the present case, be held by the Financial Commissioner -cum -Secretary, Language, Art and Culture Department, Himachal Pradesh. The petitioner has no objection to the enquiry being held by the said authority in view of the special circumstances of the case mentioned hereinabove. The enquiry will be completed on or before July 31, 1988. It is further directed that till the enquiry is held and completed, the status -quo -qua the administration of the temple and the possession of its property will be maintained.

(3.) In light of the foregoing orders, no other relief is required to be granted to the petitioner at the present stage. The petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law, in case he is dissatisfied with the decision of the Financial -Commissioner -cum -Secretary. Order accordingly.