Back
2023 Supreme(Cal) 1160
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Shekhar B. Saraf, J.
Balaram Das – Petitioner
Versus
Guru Charan Biswas – Respondent
IA NO. GA/30 of 2021 IN CS/308 of 1872, IA NO. GA/34 of 2022 IN CS/308 of 1872, IA NO. GA/36, 37 of 2023 IN CS/308 of 1872
Decided On : 27-06-2023
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Election Law
Headnote
RES JUDICATA - SHEBAITI RIGHTS - DOCTRINE OF FINALITY - RES JUDICATA - VOTING RIGHTS - ELECTIONS - DAKSHINESWAR KALI TEMPLE - RULES AND GUIDELINES - SCHEME OF ADMINISTRATION - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT - INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS - DISMISSED - FRESH ELECTIONS - VALIDITY - ELECTION NOTICE - VOTER LIST - NOMINATION - CAUTION MONEY - BALLOT VOTING - THREE TRUSTEES ELECTED - REPORT OF CHAIRMAN-CUM-SPECIAL OFFICER - ACCEPTED - VALIDITY OF ELECTIONS - UPHELD - NEW BOARD OF TRUSTEES - INSTRUCTED TO TAKE CHARGE.
Fact of the Case:
Multiple interlocutory applications were filed by individuals claiming shebaiti rights in the Dakshineswar Kali Temple. The applications were dismissed based on the principle of res judicata, as the issues had been previously adjudicated by the court. In a separate application, the applicants sought the appointment of a special officer to determine voting rights and conduct fresh elections. The court appointed a special officer, who submitted a report detailing the election process. The court accepted the report and upheld the validity of the elections.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the interlocutory applications were barred by the principle of res judicata, as the issues had been previously adjudicated by the court. The court also found that the elections were conducted in accordance with the court's order and the Scheme of Administration, and that there was no mala fide intention or unholy nexus in the process. The court accepted the report of the special officer and upheld the validity of the elections.
Issues: 1. Whether the interlocutory applications were barred by the principle of res judicata? 2. Whether the elections were conducted in accordance with the court's order and the Scheme of Administration? 3. Whether there was any mala fide intention or unholy nexus in the election process?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The principle of res judicata bars the relitigation of issues that have been previously adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction. In the present case, the issues raised by the applicants had been previously adjudicated by the court, and therefore the interlocutory applications were barred by the principle of res judicata. 2. The elections were conducted in accordance with the court's order and the Scheme of Administration. The special officer's report meticulously elucidated the entire election process, and the court found no unholy nexus or mala fide intention in the process. 3. There was no mala fide intention or unholy nexus in the election process. The court found that the elections were conducted in a fair and transparent manner, and that there was no evidence of any mala fide intention or unholy nexus.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the interlocutory applications, accepted the report of the special officer, and upheld the validity of the elections. The newly elected Board of Trustees was instructed to take charge of the management of the Dakshineswar Kali Temple and Debottar Estate.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rittik Chowdhury, Adv., Ms. Priyanka Das, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Amitesh Banerjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. Raibat Banerji, Adv. Ms. Natasha Roy, Adv.
JUDGMENT :
Shekhar B. Saraf, J.
1. I have heard the counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and have perused the materials on record.
2. Firstly, I shall be dealing with interlocutory applications being G.A. No.36 of 2023 and G.A. No. 37 of 2023 wherein a total of nine applicants claimed shebaiti rights by tracing out their interest through one Shri Prasannya Charan Chowdhury. The applicants in G.A. No. 36 of 2023 are Kasturi Roy, Kaberi Bhowmick, Karabi Chatterjee and Supriya Roy and the applicants in G.A. No. 37 of 2023 are Purnima Hazra, Subal Sakha Bishnu, Sayantani Bishnu, Arnab Bishnu and Prabir Haldar.
3. In 2007, the said applicants had applied for enlistment as shebaits which was considered and rejected by the then Chairman-cum-Special Officer, Dr. Tapas Banerjee. I have chalked out the relevant portions from minutes of the meeting dated February 02, 2007: -
“5. Regarding the application of Prabir Haldar along with the others it is objected to by some of the Sebaits on, inter alia, the ground that his predecessor, Late Saraju Prabha Mondal through whom the applicant is claiming Sebaitee right as her heir was not enrolled as a Sebait. It is stated in the application that she died on the 8 August, 1991. She never claimed to be a Sebait during her lifetime. The applicant is praying to be a Sebait for the first time. His right has to be established in an appropriate forum (sic) before he can be enrolled as a Sebait. Till the decision of such forums comes, he cannot be enrolled by me as a sebait for the first time in the proceeding before me, particularly when, strong objections are raised. The application therefore, is disallowed.
**
10. The application of Kaberi Bhowmick stands on the same footing as the 5th application and hence the same order.
11. The application of Supriya Roy stands on the same footing as the 5th application and hence the same order.
12. The application of Kasturi Roy stands on the same footing as the 5th application and hence the same order.
12A.The application of Karabi Chatterjee stands on the same footing as the 5th application and hence the same order.
**
24. The application of Anima Mondal (Polley), Purnima Hazra (Haldar), Prabir Haldar, Runu Haldar (Mukherjee) and Karabi Haldar (Bishnee) stands on the same footing as the 5th application and hence the same order.
(emphasis supplied)
4. In 2015, the said applicants undertook another attempt to gain shebaiti rights by filing interlocutory application namely G.A. No. 3264 of 2015 in C.S. No. 308 of 1872. The said application was considered and rejected by Justice Soumen Sen by an order dated April 26, 2017. The relevant portion of the order is cited below: -
“The said report of the Special Officer (sic) was accepted by the Court. In 2013, when Mr. Ashok Kumar Banerjee was appointed as Chairman-cum-Special Officer, the petitioners did not make any representation before me. The petitioners also did not take any steps to establish their rights in appropriate forum.
Under such circumstances, this application, G.A. No. 3264 of 2015 is dismissed as misconceived.”
5. The present Chairman-cum-Special Officer observed in his Report dated June 02, 2022 that the aforesaid order pronounced by Justice Soumen Sen has reached its finality and cannot be reopened before the Chairman-cum-Special Officer.
6. At this juncture, it would be prudent on my part to refer to case laws which deal with the principle of res judicata. In Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorajin Deb reported in AIR 1960 SC 941, the apex court stated the following: -
“The principle of res judicata is based on the need of giving a finality to judicial decisions. What it says is that once a res is judicata, it shall not be adjudged again. Primarily it applies as between past litigation and future litigation. When a matter-whether on a question of fact or on a question of law-has been decided between two parties in one suit or proceeding and the decision is final, either because no appeal was taken to a higher cou
