The court underscored the principle that appointments of receivers in temple management should prioritize individuals with religious and administrative expertise over legal professionals to ensure effective governance and expedite resolutions.

JUDGMENT :

Satish Chandra Sharma, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appeal before us has been preferred by the Appellant against the final judgement and order dated 27.08.2024 in Contempt Application (C) No. 4429 of 2023 (hereinafter "Impugned Order”) passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (hereinafter “High Court”), whereby the High Court allowed the petition preferred by Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2, and set aside order dated 28.03.2023 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mathura/Respondent No. 3 (hereinafter “Trial Court”), and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration.

3. During the course of the hearing, this Court has allowed I.A. No. 15019/2025, being an application for intervention filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh/Respondent No. 4; and I.A. No. 16856/2025, being an application for intervention filed by Shri Dilip Kumar Sharma/Respondent No. 5.

4. Factual Background

4.1 The Sri Giriraj Sewak Samiti, Bara Bazar, Govardhan, Mathura, is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, and was constituted to manage the affairs of Sri Giriraj Temple, Govardhan, Mathura on 18.11.1957.

4.2 The committee elections held in the year 1999 put a hiatus to the peaceful functioning of the administration of the temple, as it resulted in a dispute regarding the validity of two alleged elections held on 24.04.1999 and 30.04.1999. Consequently, Shri Govind Prasad Purohit (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) filed Original Suit No. 332 of 1999 (hereinafter “Civil Suit”) seeking a permanent injunction against the Defendant/Respondent No. 5/Dilip Kumar Sharma from causing any hinderance in all types of management and operations of the Giriraj Temple. Both the Plaintiff and the Defendant/Respondent No. 5 also filed two separate election petitions pursuant to the same, which came to be referred to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act.

4.3 Vide order dated 11.02.2000, the Prescribed Authority held the election dated 24.04.1999 to be valid by which Respondent No. 5 was declared to be the Manager.

4.4 Aggrieved, the Plaintiff preferred a Writ Petition before the High Court, being WP (C) No. 9601 of 2000, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 10.02.2006 on the ground of being infructuous.

4.5 Consequently, the Plaintiff passed away in 2006, and his son Jitendra Prasad Purohit (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) moved an application seeking to be impleaded in the Civil Suit, and setting up his claim to be appointed as Manager of Committee of Management.

4.6 Vide order dated 30.07.2021, the Trial Court in the Civil Suit appointed Shri Nand Kishore Upadhyay, Advocate as Receiver of the temple, who was also the advocate representing the Plaintiff in the Civil Suit.

4.7 Respondent No. 5 preferred a Writ Petition, being No. 4468 of 2021, against the order dated 30.07.2021 and the appointment of an advocate as the receiver. Vide order dated 23.11.2021, the High Court set aside the order dated 30.07.2021 with the consent of the parties, and remanded the matter back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration.

4.8 Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the Trial Court decided the application for appointment of Receiver and appointed a Seven Member Committee (hereinafter “the Committee”), which included 3 lawyers. While deciding the constitution of the Committee,