Chain Singh vs Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2004 Supreme(SC) 1195

2004(8) Supreme 703
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Jammu and Kashmir High Court)
Shivaraj V. Patil & B.N. Srikrishna, JJ.
Chain Singh -Appellant
versus
Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4596 of 1999
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 4597-4598 of 1999
And
Civil Appeal No. 6334 of 2004
(@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8192 of 2001)
Decided on 28-9-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : M.L. Verma, S.S. Lehar, Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Advocates, Satya Mitra, P.D. Sharma, Ms. Binu Tamta, Advocates.
For the Respondents : P.P. Rao and Upinder K. Jalali, Sr. Advocates, Manu Nair, Rohit Kapoor, Dhruv Dewan, Advocates for M/s. Suresh A. Shroff and Co., Advocates, Anish Suhrawardy and Amit Anand, Advocates.

Headnote:Jammu and Kashmir Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine, 1988-Sections 5, 6, 14, 15, 19, 20 and 24-Constitution of India-Article 226-Extinction of rights of Baridars by reason of sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the 1988 Act-Constitution of the Board-Some of the Baridars, whose rights stood extinguished challenged constitutional validity of the 1988 Act, as infringing Articles 19(1)(f) and 31 of the Constitution which continue to apply to Jammu & Kashmir area-Appellant, an ex-service man carrying on business in a shop allegedly as tenant of shop premises-Appellant claims that by reason of Section 19(3), he became the tenant of the Board-Upon the Board coming into existence, appellant was shifted from the original shop and given new premises smaller in area-Writ petition filed against the Board to refrain it from interfering with his business activities-Writ petition dismissed as not maintainable-High Court held that the Shrine Board is not amenable to writ jurisdiction, as it is not State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution-Whether judgment of the High Court is sustainable-(No).
       Held : The question before the court was whether the right to property of the Baridars had merely been extinguished or it had been transferred to a State controlled Corporation , which would determine whether the Baridars had a right to compensation or not. This, in turn, would determine the constitutional validity of the 1988 Act, which prescribed no principles or guidelines on which compensation was to be paid to the Baridars, whose rights were extinguished. None of these issues touched the question whether the Shrine Board was amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. All that was decided is that the Shrine Board is not a State controlled Corporation . This issue, per se, is not determinative of the issue as to whether the Shrine Board is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The sweep of Article 226 of the Constitution is much wider. It can be exercised against "any person or authority", including in appropriate cases "any Government". (Para 23)
       We are inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the respondents, Shri P.P. Rao, that the matter should be remitted to the High Court for consideration of the issue of the amenability of the Board to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court in the light of the law laid down in Pradeep Kumar Biswas (supra). The High Court has also not gone into the merits of the cases before it in view of its decision on the maintainability of the writ petitions. Taking all these circumstances into consideration, we are of the view that the impugned judgments of the High Court are required to be set aside. (Para 25)
       We have refrained from expressing any view on the apprehension voiced by the learned counsel for the appellants that Section 20 of the 1988 Act bars civil suits and adjudications under labour laws. The High Court shall, therefore, first consider the maintainability of the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by examining whether the Shrine Board is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, by applying the principles and tests laid down in Pradeep Kumar Biswas case (supra). The High Court shall also consider whether any alternative remedy is available to the writ petitioners by way of civil suit or industrial adjudication. It shall be open to the High Court to take an appropriate decision thereupon, including the relegation of the parties to the appropriate remedy, if the High Court upon interpretation of the provision of Section 20 of the 1988 Act comes to the conclusion that such alternative remedy is available to the writ petitioners before it. (Paras 27 and 28)

JUDGMENT

B.N. Srikrishna, J.-These civil appeals and the special leave petition arise out of and impugn the same judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir which allowed the Letters Patent Appeals of the respondents.

2. A popular Hindu Shrine in Jammu thronged by devotees all round the year, Mata Vaishno Devi is situated on the Trikuta Hills, approximately 45 kilometers from Jammu city. The Shrine was originally managed by a trust known as Dharmarth Trust , which managed, not only the affairs of the shrine, but also looked after the welfare of the pilgrims. The actual duties of performance of Pooja and protection of the Shrine were carried out by Baridars, who belonged to the two villages in the vicinity of the Shrine. With the popularity of the Shrine increasing, there was an exponential increase in the number of pilgrims visiting the Shrine. When the number of devotees visiting the Shrine became unmanageable, there were complaints with regard to administration and management of the temple, and the facilities made available for the pilgrims. This led to the enactment of The Jammu and Kashmir Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Act, 1986 (Governor s Act No. XXXIII of 1986) which was replaced by an Act of Legislature, passed in 1988, (Act No. XVI of 1988) called The Jammu and Kashmir Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 1988 Act ).

3. A statutory Board is constituted under Section 5 of the 1988 Act, of which the Governor of Jammu & Kashmir is the ex-officio Chairman. The administration, management and governance of Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine and the Shrine Fund vest in the Board, which comprises a Chairman and not more than ten members. Under Section 6 of the 1988 Act, the Board is deemed to be a body corporate and shall have perpetual succession and a common seal and by the said name the Board can sue and be sued. Under Section 14 of the 1988 Act, the Board is empowered to appoint a Chief Executive Officer and such other officers and servants as it considers necessary with such designations, pay, allowances and other conditions of service as determined from time to time. Section 15 of the 1988 Act provides that the employees of the Board are deemed to be public servants within the meaning of Section 21 of the State Ranbir Penal Code (which corresponds to the Indian Penal Code) as applicable in Jammu & Kashmir area.

4. One of the drastic change brought about by the 1988 Act was that by reason of Section 19, all rights of Baridars stood extinguished.

5. Section 20 provides that no suit or other proceedings shall lie in any court against the Board or its officers for anything done or purported to be done in good faith under the Act.

6. Section 24 empowers the Board to make bye-laws not inconsistent with the Act for carrying out its duties.

Civil Appeal No. 4596 of 1999 :

7. The appellant, Chain Singh, is an ex-service man who claims that in the year 1983, he became the tenant of a shop premises let out to him by Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Dharmarth Trust at an annual rent of Rs. 15,000/-. The appellant was carrying on the business of selling petty items for use of the pilgrims in his shop and had obtained licences from the different authorities, including the Assistant Director, Tourism, for carrying on his trade. After the Jammu & Kashmir Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Act, 1986 Act came into force (later replaced by the 1988 Act ), the appellant claims that, by reason of Section 19(3), he became the tenant of the Board. It is his case that he thereafter continued as a tenant of the Board. Upon the Board coming into existence, the appellant was shifted from the original shop allotted to him by the Dharmarth Trust to a new shop constructed by the Board. According to the appellant, the new shop premises were smaller in area and there was also interference in his day to day business by the officers of the Board, who were bent upon throwing him out therefrom, so that they could extract

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 1195

Cases Referred (9)