MAHADEOSHAL SEWA SAMITEE, GOELKERA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 6812 of 2012 dated 8th March, 2013.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant (original petitioner) submitted that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa dated 02.11.2012 (Annexure5 to the memo of Letters Patent Appeal) was under challenge in the writ petition. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant is Sewa Samitee, who was given management and control of the temple, in question by 'Sri Sri Jagatguru Shankeracharya Swami Sri Swarupanandjee Saraswatijee Maharaj'. The temple, in question is not a government property, at all. Since 1890, the ownership of Mahadeoshal Temple, Goelkera is belonging to the private persons. The appellant is a registered society. The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out the history of ownership of the temple, in question since 1890 and has submitted that since long the appellant is managing the affairs of Mahadeoshal temple and therefore, the Deputy Commissioner has no power, jurisdiction and authority to give the management to other persons than the appellant. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and hence, the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 6812 of 2012 dated 8th March, 2013 deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents have also pointed out detailed history of the temple, in question from 1890 and it has also been pointed out that there are several criminal proceedings for certain incidents, which were taken place in the temple under various sections of Code of Criminal Procedure. There is also offence in the year 2008 that BrahmchariPujari appointed by the Akhil Bhartiya Adhyatmik Uthan Mandal, was involved in a rape case and he was taken in custody, as stated on oath in an affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3 in the writ petition. It is also submitted by the counsel for the respondents that in Shrawani Mela, there are lot of mismanagement due to heavy rush of the public at large and there is also mismanagement so far monetary aspect is concerned and therefore, the Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa has rightly passed an order dated 2nd November, 2011 as an interim measure. There is inter se dispute between the appellant (original petitioner) and respondent no. 4. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and hence, the Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this Court.