Back
THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KARDAK ETE, J
Rajendra Das, Mahant Of Sri Sitaram Thakurbari - Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam - Respondent
WP(C)/5616/2018
Decided On : 25-02-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Articles 25(2) and 26 - Administrative authority - The Deputy Commissioner & District Magistrate's order to take control of a religious institution without legal basis is unsustainable - The court emphasized that religious denominations have the right to manage their own affairs without state interference unless regulated by law. (Paras 32 , 34 )
(B) Administrative action - The court found that the impugned orders were issued without discernible authority or legal backing, constituting an abuse of power. (Paras 11 , 37 )
(C) Land rights - The petitioner, as Mahant, claimed ownership of the land, while the respondents argued it was temple property, highlighting the dispute over management and ownership. (Paras 30 , 31 )
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, anointed as Mahant of Sri Sitaram Thakurbari, challenged orders by the Deputy Commissioner and Addl. Deputy Commissioner that took control of the temple amidst disputes over management and land ownership.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the Deputy Commissioner lacked authority to interfere in the temple's management, emphasizing the autonomy of religious denominations.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Deputy Commissioner had the authority to interfere with the management of a religious denomination.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the state cannot interfere in the management of religious institutions without a legal framework, reaffirming the autonomy of religious denominations under Articles 25 and 26.
Result: The impugned orders were set aside and quashed.
JUDGMENT :
KARDAK ETE, J.
Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. D.J. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Goswami, learned State Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Mr. J.C. Gaur, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 and 7 to 15.
2. As both these Writ Petitions are analogous, same were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment and order.
3. The challenge made in Writ Petition (C) No.5616/2018 is the impugned order bearing No.WA/2018/28/CA-A, dated 24.07.2018, passed by the Deputy Commissioner & District Magistrate, Kamrup (M) District, whereby one Sri Nabadeep Pathak, ACS, Addl. Deputy Commissioner & Addl. District Magistrate, Kamrup (M) District, Guwahati has been directed to take over the overall control of Sri Sitaram Thakurbari situated at SRCB Road, Fancy Bazar, Guwahati and to streamline the dispute.
4. In the Writ Petition (C) No.5757/2018, the petitioner challenges the order 16.08.2018, passed by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner & Addl. District Magistrate, Kamrup (M) District, Guwahati whereby in pursuant to the impugned order dated 24.07.2018 by the Deputy Commissioner & District Magistrate, Kamrup (M) District, has appointed some persons including the private respondents by entrusting responsibilities on temporary basis for maintenance of Sri Sitaram Thakurbari, thereby fixing a meeting comprising the said members and tenants as well as other registered members for the welfare of Sri Sitaram Thakurbari.
5. The brief history of the case and its facts as summarised in the petition are that Sri Sitaram Thakurbari situated at SRCB Road, Fancy Bazar, Guwahati was established about 200 years back by few devotees who hailed from the State of Bihar as per the traditions followed in the 'Ramanuj Panth'. In the Thakurbaris of the above Panth, the deities of Lord Rama and Godess Sita are mainly worshiped along with Lord Narayana. In every Thakurbari, there exists a special sub temple for worshiping other deities. In such Thakurbaris of ‘Ramanuj Panth’, the pujas and rituals are performed in a special traditional manner under the authority/guidance of the duly anointed Mahant. As per the tradition followed in the Panth, a future Mahant is selected as per the wishes of the Mahant who is holding office and after his demise, the selected Mahant is elevated to the Ashana by performing necessary rituals in presence of devotees of the Thakurbari. As per the tradition of the Panth once a disciple is elevated as Mahant of the Thakurbari, he continues to be in that status till the end of his life. Further, in a Thakurbari under the ‘Ramanuj Panth’, its Mahant is treated as the sole custodian of all moveable and immovable properties of the Thakurbari and as the sole religious authority as well as administrator of the organization.
6. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 2015, he was anointed as Mahant of Sri Sitaram Thakurbari, SRCB Road, Fancy Bazar, Guwahati as per the wishes of the earlier Mahant Late Pitambar Das. After his elevation to the status of Mahant of Sri Sitaram Thakurbari, the petitioner has been discharging his duties and responsibilities in the said capacity to the utmost satisfaction of all concerned including the devotees and disciples of the Thakurbari. It is contended that since the anointment of the petitioner as Mahant, a small group of tenants of the Thakurbari in connivance with some businessmen of the locality, who are having vested interest, have been systematically creating trouble for the petitioner. The petitioner contends that their main objective is to grab the landed properties of the Thakurbari by ousting the petitioner from the status of Mahant by any available means. Therefore, the said group has been conspiring against the petitioner by spreading rumours.
7. It is contended by the petitioner that the said faction ultimately succeeded in persuading a female devotee resi
State authorities cannot interfere in the management of religious institutions without legal authority, as guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
The State's interference in the management of religious denominations must only address law and order, maintaining the autonomy of religious practices and their management according to historical and....
State authorities cannot exercise jurisdiction over a temple located in another territory, highlighting the importance of territorial jurisdiction in religious endowments.
The Commissioner lacked authority to appoint an Executive Officer for temple administration, violating established law and trustee rights under the HR & CE Act.
The court established that the Commissioner of Endowments lacked jurisdiction to revoke exemptions and appoint trustees without following due process as mandated by the Endowments Act.
The court upheld the recognized rights of a religious community to perform rituals in a temple and deemed the ongoing civil proceedings as sufficient to adjudicate any disputes regarding those rights....
The appointment of non-hereditary trustees is valid under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act when there is evidence of mismanagement by hereditary trustees, and full legal procedures a....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
