Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT GOA
M.S. Sonak, R.N. Laddha, JJ.
Ramnath Vasudev Shanbhag & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Administrator Of Devalaya & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 158 of 2022 (F)
Decided On : 29-07-2022
Mr. J.P. Mulgaonkar, Senior Advocate with Ms. S. Bangera, Advocate for the Petitioners, for the Appellant; Mr. Devidas J. Pangam, Advocate General with Ms. Maria Correia, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr. S.G. Bhobe, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Mr. Parag Wagle, Advocate for Respondent No.3. Mr. S.S. Kantak, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhijit Kamat, Ms. Neha Kholkar & Ms. S. Desai, Advocates for Respondent Nos.4 & 5.
Headnote:
The petition challenges the removal of 2352 Mahazans out of a total of 3084, including the petitioners, from the list of capable Mahazans entitled to vote for constituting the Managing Committee of Shree Ramnath Devasthan Saunsthan, Zambaulim, (R-2). The Managing Committee's interpretation of Articles 6 and 9 of the bye-laws, 1900 does not entitle them to vote. The Court held that the impugned decision is unsustainable on merits and warrants interference.
Fact of the Case:
The Managing Committee (R-2) of Shree Ramnath Devasthan Saunsthan, Zambaulim, proposed to remove 2352 Mahazans out of a total of 3084, including the petitioners, from the list of capable Mahazans entitled to vote for constituting the Managing Committee. The Managing Committee interpreted Articles 6 and 9 of the bye-laws, 1900 to support their decision, which barred non-Goan Mahazans from participating in 'acts of management.'
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the impugned decision was flawed due to several reasons, including violation of principles of natural justice and fair play, overreaching of judicial orders, and misinterpretation of the bye-laws. The Court held that the expression 'acts of management' in Article 6 of the bye-laws does not include the right to vote or contest elections to the Managing Committee. The Court also found that the bye-laws do not impose any specific bar on non-Goan Mahazans from voting at elections to constitute the Managing Committee.
Issues: 1. Whether the Managing Committee's interpretation of Articles 6 and 9 of the bye-laws, 1900 is correct in barring non-Goan Mahazans from voting at elections to constitute the Managing Committee? 2. Whether the impugned decision is flawed due to violation of principles of natural justice and fair play, overreaching of judicial orders, and misinterpretation of the bye-laws?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the expression 'acts of management' in Article 6 of the bye-laws does not include the right to vote or contest elections to the Managing Committee. The Court reasoned that the bye-laws do not impose any specific bar on non-Goan Mahazans from voting at elections to constitute the Managing Committee. The Court also found that Article 31 of the Devasthan Regulations, a legislative instrument, explicitly declares that the Mahazans shall be competent to vote at elections to constitute the Managing Committee. 2. The Court found that the impugned decision was flawed due to several reasons, including violation of principles of natural justice and fair play, overreaching of judicial orders, and misinterpretation of the bye-laws. The Court held that the Managing Committee's decision-making process was flawed as it violated the principles of natural justice and fair play, ignored relevant legal provisions, and was aimed at overreaching the judicial process.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition and made the rule absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b), (d) & (e) of the petition. The Court directed the Mamlatdar/Administrator to open the seals, count the votes and declare the results in the presence of the Petitioners or their representatives, the members of the Managing Committee, and Raunak/Nishad, if they choose to remain present. The Court also directed that the members of the present Managing Committee should hand over charge to the newly elected Managing Committee members within a maximum of five days from the declaration of results.
Key Points: - The Court held that non-Goan Mahazans are not barred from voting; Article 31(3) of the Devasthan Regulations guarantees Mahazans the right to vote for the Managing Committee, and bye-law Article 6 does not dilute that right (!) (!) (!) . - The Court found that the phrase "acts of management" in Article 6 of the bye-laws does not include the right to vote or contest elections, and there is no explicit bar on non-Goan Mahazans from voting (!) (!) . - The petition was allowed; the rule absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b), (d), and (e), quashing the list of capable Mahazans dated 15.01.2022 and directing counting of votes with separate ballot boxes, and transfer of charge within five days after declaration of results (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Interim arrangements and subsequent elections were ordered to be held with Goan and non-Goan voters in separate ballot boxes, with sealing and custody by the Administrator/Mamlatdar (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The Court criticized the Managing Committee’s process as flawed and potentially overreaching judicial orders, and remanded for merits, while safeguarding rights of non-Goan Mahazans to vote (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
What is the extent of the non-Goan Mahazan voting rights under the Devasthan Regulations and bye-laws?
What is the Court’s ruling on whether the expression "acts of management" in the bye-laws includes the right to vote or be voted for?
What are the directions issued by the Court regarding reopening or counting votes and transitioning control of the Managing Committee?
JUDGMENT
M.S. Sonak, J. - Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Rule. The rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. The challenge in this petition is to removal of 2352 Mahazans out of a total of 3084, including the petitioners, from the list of capable Mahazans entitled to vote for constituting the Managing Committee of Shree Ramnath Devasthan Saunsthan, Zambaulim, (R-2). The Managing Committee, by proposing such large-scale deletions, has altered the status quo prevalent for at least the last 30 years or thereabouts. Moreover, the removal/deletion is on the sole ground that these 2352 Mahazans allegedly do not have a permanent residence in Goa. Therefore, the Managing Committee's interpretation of Articles 6 and 9 of the bye-laws, 1900 does not entitle them to vote.
4. For the elections scheduled on 13.03.2022, this Court, with the parties consent, made an order dated 08.03.2022, transcribed below for the convenience of reference.
"Heard Mr. G. K. Sardessai, learned Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. D. Pangam, learned Advocate General with Ms. Maria Correia, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1, Mr. S. G. Bhobe, learned Advocate for respondent No.2 and Mr. Parag Wagle, learned Advocate for respondent No.3.
2. After this matter was heard for some time, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, which consent, in turn, is based on the instructions the learned Counsel have received from the party whom they represent, the following interim arrangement is ordered:
i. The elections to the Managing Committee of Ramnath Damodar Devasthan, Zambaulim scheduled for 13/03/2022, shall now be conducted on 20/03/2022. Necessary notice about the changed date will be published by respondent No.2 on the notice board as also in three newspapers i.e. in Marathi, Konkani, and English, latest by 11/03/2022.
ii. The elections will be conducted by the Administrator of Devalaya i.e. the Mamlatdar of Sanguem. The respondent No.2 to render all assistance to the Mamlatdar for the conduct of these elections.
iii. The petitioners and the Mahazans, who are now described as non-Goans, whose names have been deleted from the list of capable Mahazans of the Devasthan i.e. the list dated 15/01/2022 and found in the earlier list of December 2020 are permitted to cast their vote at the elections now rescheduled for 20/03/2022.
iv. Similarly, the Mahazans whose names appear in the list dated 15/01/2022 are also permitted to cast their vote at the above elections.
v. The Mahazans referred to in clauses (iii) and (iv) above shall cast their votes separately in different ballot boxes for which appropriate arrangement shall be made by the Administrator/Mamlatdar and after the voting is complete, both the sets of boxes will be sealed by the Mamlatdar/Administrator, until further orders. This means that the petitioners and those Mahazans who have been described as non-Goans and whose names appear in December 2020 list and the remaining Mahazans will have to vote in separate ballot boxes. These ballot boxes will have to be identified and sealed by the Mamlatdar/Administrator.
vi. The sealing will have to be carried out by the Mamlatdar/Administrator in the presence of the candidates. The candidates therefore to remain present if they so desire at the time of the conclusion of the voting.
vii. The ballot boxes sealed and segregated as above shall remain in the custody of the Mamlatdar/Administrator and the further action shall be in terms of the further orders that will be made in this petition.
3. The aforesaid interim arrangements are without prejudice to the rights and contentions of all the parties.
4. The aforesaid interim arrangements have been made with the consent and the same were necessary in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
5. Place this matter for further consideration on 22/03/2022.
6. Mr. G.K. Sardessai has now filed the Vakalatnama on behalf o
