The Devasthan Regulation, 1933, repealed the previous Devasthan Regulation and the bye-laws framed thereunder, including those for the administration of Shree Bhagwati Chimulkarrin Devasthan of Marcela, Goa. Under the Devasthan Regulation, there is only one body of members (Mazanias) of Hindu temples, with a managing committee elected by the members. There is no provision for a separate committee of 'Dazans' or for their election.

Headnote:
DEVASTHAN REGULATION - BYE-LAWS - APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE - ELECTION OF MANAGING COMMITTEE - COLLUSIVE PETITION - EXEMPLARY COSTS: 1. The Devasthan Regulation, 1933, repealed the previous Devasthan Regulation and the bye-laws framed thereunder, including those for the administration of Shree Bhagwati Chimulkarrin Devasthan of Marcela, Goa. 2. The bye-laws contemplated two committees, one of 'Mahajans' and the other of 'Dazans', with separate funds, but this arrangement was to continue until the fund of the Mahajans association was established. 3. Under the Devasthan Regulation, there is only one body of members (Mazanias) of Hindu temples, with a managing committee elected by the members. There is no provision for a separate committee of 'Dazans' or for their election. 4. The petitioner's claim for the appointment of an administrative committee under Article 45 of the Devasthan Regulation, after the dissolution of the 'Dazans' committee, is misplaced as there is no such provision for the election of a 'Dazans' committee. 5. The petition, filed by the son of a former 'Dazans' committee member after the rejection of their review petition and SLP, is collusive and frivolous, aimed at setting aside the compromise reached in a previous writ petition. 6. The petition is dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 10,000/-.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, claiming to be a 'Dazan' (Associate) of Shree Bhagwati Chimulkarrin Devasthan of Marcela, Goa, challenged the dissolution of the 'Dazans' managing committee and sought the appointment of an administrative committee under Article 45 of the Devasthan Regulation. The petitioner contended that the bye-laws of the Devasthan contemplated two managing committees, one of 'Mahajans' and the other of 'Dazans', with distinct functions and separate treasuries.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the bye-laws under which the petitioner claimed the existence of two committees were repealed by the Devasthan Regulation, 1933. The Devasthan Regulation provided for only one body of members (Mazanias) of Hindu temples, with a managing committee elected by the members. There was no provision for a separate committee of 'Dazans' or for their election.
Issues: 1. Whether the bye-laws providing for two managing committees, one of 'Mahajans' and the other of 'Dazans', were repealed by the Devasthan Regulation, 1933? 2. Whether there is a provision for the election of a 'Dazans' committee under the Devasthan Regulation? 3. Whether the petitioner's claim for the appointment of an administrative committee under Article 45 of the Devasthan Regulation is valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the bye-laws under which the petitioner claimed the existence of two committees were repealed by the Devasthan Regulation, 1933. Article 437 of the Devasthan Regulation repealed all rules to the contrary, general as well as special, including the bye-laws framed under the previous Devasthan Regulation. 2. The court found that there is no provision for the election of a 'Dazans' committee under the Devasthan Regulation. The Regulation provides for only one body of members (Mazanias) of Hindu temples, with a managing committee elected by the members. 3. The court held that the petitioner's claim for the appointment of an administrative committee under Article 45 of the Devasthan Regulation is invalid. Article 45 provides for the appointment of an administrative committee only in the case of dissolution of the elected managing committee, and there is no provision for the election of a 'Dazans' committee.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 10,000/-.

JUDGMENT - R.K. BATTA, J.:---The petitioner claims to be a 'Dazan' (Associate) of Shree Bhagwati Chimulkarrin Devasthan of Marcela, Goa (hereinafter referred to as the said Devasthan). According to the petitioner, the said Devasthan has bye-laws, duly approved by Portaria (Order) No. 108, which were published in the Government Gazette No. 83 dated 27-10-1910. The said bye-laws contemplate two managing committees, namely one managing committee of 'Mahajans' and the other managing committee of 'Dazans'. The functions of the said committees are distinct and defined in the bye-laws, as can be seen from various articles, especially Articles 3, 4, 10, 23, 29, 33 and 34. The petitioner further contends that the treasury of 'Dazans' is distinct and independent from the treasury of the 'Mahajans'. Respondents No. 5 to 12 claimed that they should be appointed as 'Mahajans' of the said Devasthan, but the same was denied to them, as a result of which, the said respondents moved the Government and obtained directions to the elected committee of 'Dazans' to appoint them as 'Mahajans' of the said Devasthan. The Managing Committee of the said Devasthan did not comply with the directions of the Government, as a result of which, the Government vide order dated 8-11-1995, dissolved the managing committee of 'Dazans'. The managing committee of 'Dazans' filed Writ Petition 349/95, challenging the said order of dissolution dated 8-11-1995. The managing committee of 'Dazans' compromised the said Writ Petition 349/95 with respondents No. 5 to 12 persuant to which the said petition was disposed of in the following terms:-

"1. The petitioners will enrol those Mahajans whose names appear in the notice dated 6th April 1995 issued by the Mamlatdar, being Exhibit R-1 of the affidavit of the Government.

This the petitioners should do within 15 days from today.

2. The first respondent is directed to conduct the elections of the Managing Committee of Mahajans within 2 months thereafter.

3. Till the new Managing Committee takes charge after the elections, the interim order passed by this Court will continue and thereafter the petitioners committee is not entitled to continue.

4. These terms are ordered subject to the contentions raised by the parties in the Special Civil Suit No. 79/92 pending in the lower Court.

Order accordingly. The writ petition is disposed of."

According to the petitioner, the said compromise was arrival at by the managing committee of 'Dazans' without consulting General Body of 'Dazans' and in violation of the bye-laws of the aforesaid Devasthan. He further contends that the managing committee of 'Dazans' had been duly elected by 'Dazans' of the said Devasthan and in terms of Article 45 of the Devasthan Regulation, when an elected managing committee is dissolved, the Governor is required to appoint an administrative committee, which would replace the dissolved committee, till the elections are held in accordance with Devasthan Regulation. The petitioner's case further is that subsequently, the managing committee of 'Dazans' who had filed the Writ Petition No. 349/95 and had entered into a compromise, realised that the statutes or the bye-laws contemplate 2 managing committees and, as such, the Devasthan had to have permanently a managing committee of 'Dazans' to perform the functions attributed to it by statutes or bye-laws. Accordingly, Review Application 16/96 was filed, seeking clarification of the compromise order dated 25-6-1996 to the effect that after the election of the managing committee of 'Mahajans', the managing committee of 'Dazans' is not entitled to perform the functions of the managing committee of 'Mahajans', but they would be entitled to continue to perform the functions of the managing committee of 'Dazans', as contemplated by the bye-laws. This review petition was dismissed. The managing committee of 'Dazans' filed Special leave petition before the Apex Court against the compromise order dated 25-6-1996, but the said Speci

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1999 Supreme(Bom) 709

Cases Referred (3)

Login now and unlock premium legal research