Judgment

Arijit Pasayat, J.—Leave granted.

2. When litigants come before courts raising disputes as to who shall function as Head of a religious or financial institutions, and they travel through the corridors of various courts and come before this Court, one wonders when do these persons get time to think of purity sublime essences of religion and their duties as religious leaders. It has a sad reflection on the credibility of the religious institutions. Materialistic pursuits increasingly replace divine ­pursuits. The present case at hand is no exception.­

3. The dispute centres round the question as to whether the removal of Ajendraprasadji Narendraprasadji Pandey from the post of Acharya on the basis of a purported resolution dated 11.5.2002 passed by a body calling itself Satsangha Maha Sabha was valid. Intimately linked with this core issue is the legality of the action taken to install Rakesh Prasadji Mahendra Prasadji. The dispute relates to Shri Swaminarayan Sampradaya, Vadtal Gaddi. The concerned suit was filed before the 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nadiad numbered as Special Civil Suit No. 156/2002. An application in terms of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the ‘CPC’) was filed and the same was allowed by order dated 1.10.2002 with the following direction:

“The application Exh.5 filed by the plaintiff against the defendant is hereby allowed till final disposal of the application and I pass further order that the defendant herein himself or his supporters be restrained from entering in the Temple at Vadtal and subordinate Temples-Gadhada, Junagadh. Moreover, they shall not arrange any meeting without prior permission of the Government. Moreover, the defendant No.1 is removed from the post of Acharya therefore he shall not perform duty of Acharya.

The aforesaid interim order is granted till the final disposal of the suit.

Further, I pass order that the defendant, his relatives or his followers shall not enter in any temple of the Vadtal Trustee Board to perform “Darshan” or “Puja”. Further, they are directed not to act against the aforesaid order. They can perform “Darshan” like other common man. They cannot perform “Darshan” or “Puja” in the capacity of Acharya.”

4. It is to be noted that an application in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was filed which was rejected by the common order dated 1.10.2002. An appeal was filed before the Gujarat High Court for staying operation of the order of the Trial Court and seeking injunction restraining the appointment of any other person as Acharya of the Southern Diocese. The appeal was admitted but no interim protection was given. In the meantime, on 31.1.2003 the new Acharya was appointed by the Committee constituted pursuant to the resolution on 11.5.2002. An application was filed questioning the appointment of the new Acharya i.e. Rakeshprasadji Mahendraprasadji. Certain Satsanghis filed Special Civil Suit No. 17 of 2003 questioning appointment of the new Acharya.

5. Special Leave Petition (C) No. 3351 of 2003 was filed before this Court questioning order of the Gujarat High Court in C.A.No. 7520 of 2002 in A.O.No. 421 of 2002. This Court requested the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court to ensure early disposal of the appeal. The Appeal from Order No. 421/2002, Appeal from Order No. 69/2003 and Civil Application No. 611/2003 and other miscellaneous applications were filed and by the impugned judgment the Appeal from Order No. 421/2002 was dismissed while no order was passed on other applications.

6. In support of the appeals, primary stand taken is that the suit is misconceived in view of the provisions contained in the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (in short the ‘Act’), more particularly in the background of Sections 50 and 51 of the said Act. The purported resolution of 11.5.2002 has no legal sanctity and the removal of the erstwhile Acharya was done without any authority by a group of people who were small in number com