SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(SC) 821

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ajay Rastogi, Abhay S. Oka, JJ.
The Bordeuri Samaj of Sri Sri Maa Kamakhya – Petitioner
Versus
Riju Prasad Sarma & Ors. – Respondents
Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 853-855 of 2015 In Civil Appeal Nos. 3276-3278 of 2013
Decided On : 15-12-2021

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Manish Goswami, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Manoj C. Mishra, Avijit Roy, Shuvodeep Roy, Ishaan Borthakur, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINTS
Contempt jurisdiction is always discretionary which should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection.

Headnote:

Constitution of India – Article 129 – Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12 – Contempt of Court – Judgment shows that there is no discussion therein about liability of respondents to pay any specific amount – There is no finding recorded that any particular amount is payable by respondents to petitioner – Observations in report of Additional Director General of CID, Assam, cannot be treated as concluded findings – No case made out to take action under Article 129 of Constitution read with Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Contempt jurisdiction is always discretionary which should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection – This is not a fit case to exercise said jurisdiction by punishing respondents – However, it is always open for petitioner to adopt appropriate proceedings for recovery of money as mentioned in report in accordance with law – Contempt Petitions disposed of with observations. (Paras 7 to 10)

Facts of the case:

Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 129 of the Constitution of India read with the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for initiating action against the respondents nos.1 to 5 for committing breaches of the directions contained in the Judgment of this Court dated 7th July 2015 in Civil Appeal Nos.3276-3278 of 2013.

Findings of Court:

There is no specific direction in paragraph 73 to pay any amount. Prima facie observation about misappropriation is based on the view expressed in the report. What is observed in the said report is not conclusive.

Result : Contempt Petitions disposed of with observations.

JUDGMENT :

Abhay S. Oka, J.

1. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 129 of the Constitution of India read with the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for initiating action against the respondents nos.1 to 5 for committing breaches of the directions contained in the Judgment of this Court dated 7th July 2015 in Civil Appeal Nos.3276-3278 of 2013, Riju Prasad Sarma and Others v. State of Assam and Others, (2015) 9 SCC 461.

2. The issue involved in the said Judgment is in respect of Sri Sri Maa Kamakhya Devalaya. The case made out in the contempt petitions is that the petitioner is the elected Dolois representing members of Bordeuri Samaj of Kamakhya Devalaya. It is the case of the petitioner that the right of Bordeuri Samaj to manage religious affairs of Kamakhya Temple has been recognised from time immemorial. Bordeuri Samaj consists of members of five families and Dolois (head priest) is elected from amongst the members of the five families. It is pointed out that in the year 1998, a self-styled body in the name and style of Kamakhya Debutter Board (‘Debutter Board’) was formed by the respondent nos.1 to 4 and that they have illegally usurped the power that has been historically vested in the office of Dolois.

3. The breach alleged in these contempt petitions is of the direction contained in paragraph 73 of the aforesaid Judgment of this Court dated 7 th July 2015, which reads thus:-

    “73. Since the Debutter Board is occupying some part of the premises in the Temple of Sri Sri Maa Kamakhya Temple on account of interim orders of this Court, all those interim orders are now vacated. The District Administration is directed to ensure that those premises are vacated by the members or representatives of the Debutter Board at the earliest and in any case within four weeks. The premises and other properties of Sri Sri Maa Kamakhya Temple shall, if required, be placed back within the same time in possession of the Bordeories Samaj through the last elected Dolois against receipts which shall be retained in the Office of Deputy Commissioner, Gauhati. The parties representing the Debutter Board are also directed to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the premises concerned and other properties of the Temple, if any, within four weeks. There shall be no order as to costs”.

    (underline supplied)

The first grievance in the contempt petitions is that the possession of the immovable properties being 2 buildings mentioned in paragraph 2(t) of the contempt petition has not been handed over to Bordeuri Samaj by the respondent nos.1 to 5. The second grievance is that various movable properties of the Temple, as detailed in the representation dated 3rd August 2015, have not been handed over to the petitioner. The third grievance is that though as per the statement of accounts submitted on behalf of Debutter Board, it was holding surplus cash amount of not less than Rupees eleven crores, which belonged to the Deity, it has not been paid. Lastly, a grievance is made that books of accounts pertaining to the Temple have not been handed over to the petitioner.

4. Initially, notice of these petitions was issued only to the respondent no.5 -Deputy Commissioner. Thereafter, notice was also issued to the respondent nos.1 to 4 as well. In the order dated 18th April 2016 passed in these contempt petitions, this Court recorded undertaking of the respondent nos.1 to 3 that they will furnish whatever remaining details relating to their bank accounts and the funds available in their accounts. The undertaking was recorded without prejudice to the stand of the said respondents that certain accounts are not connected with Kamakhya Devalaya. Further order dated 4th July 2016 passed by this Court records that the respondent no.5 stated that an inquiry is being held to find out all the details. This Court directed the respondent nos.1 to 4 to file copies of the consolidated accounts, if not filed earlier, as well as copies of the entries

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top