Gujarat High Court
Dineshkumar vs Collector on 14 August, 2008
Author: Jayant Patel
Bench: Jayant Patel
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/728020/2008 5/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7280 of 2008
=========================================================
DINESHKUMAR
LABHSHANKAR RAVAL - Petitioner(s)
Versus
COLLECTOR
& 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
GM JOSHI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MS B. KOTECHA AGP for Respondent(s) : 1,
None
for Respondent(s) : 2,
MR GUNVANT R THAKAR for Respondent(s) :
3,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
Date
: 14/08/2008
ORAL
ORDER
The petitioner by this petition has challenged the decision taken by the respondent authority for appointing Respondent No.3 as pujari at Harihareshwar Mahadev temple in Matarvadi, Patan.
Heard Mr.Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Ms.Kotecha, learned AGP for the State and Mr.Thakar, learned Counsel for respondent No.3.
After some arguments, as this Court had shown disinclination to interfere with the order for appointment of respondent No.3 on merits, Mr.Joshi, learned Counsel, under the instruction of his client, who is identified by him and present in the Court, stated that the petitioner is not pressing the petition, but on humanitarian consideration, since the petitioner is staying with his family in the temple campus, he may be allowed to continue to occupy the residence until 31st October, 2008 and from tomorrow onwards the puja may be performed by respondent No.3 as pujari pursuant to the appointment order. He also submitted that there is no objection in getting two keys of the lock outside the campus, so that both may have ingress and egress and the petitioner will have no objection for performance puja by respondent No.3 as pujari pursuant to the impugned order passed by the competent authority.
As the matter is pertaining to performance of puja in a temple and since the petitioner is also not pressing the petition, on humanitarian ground the indulgence can be granted and Mr.Thakar for respondent No.3 as well as the learned AGP have also not seriously resisted the same.
Hence, the following order:-
(a) No interference with the order for appointment of respondent No.3 as pujari, save and except the following observations:-
(1) Pursuant to the order of the competent authority, respondent No.3 shall be entitled to continue as pujari and he will have all rights of performing puja in the temple pursuant to the impugned order passed by the competent authority and the application of the petitioner for appointment as pujari will stand rejected.
(2) The petitioner will be allowed to stay in the residential quarter/premise, which is in the temple campus with his family up to 31.10.2008 and he shall vacate from 1.11.2008. In the event the quarter is not vacated by 1.11.2008, it will be open to the authority, including respondents No.1 and 2 to ensure that with the assistance of police, the quarter is vacated and it is entrusted to respondent No.3.
(3) Until 31.10.2008, the temple shall remain under the full control of respondent No.3. The lock of the main gate of the campus may be applied, of which one key shall remain with respondent No.3 and one key shall remain with the petitioner herein until 31.10.2008 only.
(4) It is also observed and clarified that after 31st October, 2008, respondent No.3, as per the impugned order will have all rights, including for occupation of quarter/premises.
(5) It is further observed and clarified that the petitioner shall be at liberty to visit the temple as one of the followers for darshan and the same shall be like ordinary citizen or other persons visiting the temple.
(6) The custody of the ornaments, utensils and other values shall be handed over by the petitioner to respondent No.3 in presence of a representative, who may be nominated by the Mamlatdar on or before 22.8.2008. The other common facilities shall be made open for all the visitors, including the pujari, respondent No.3 herein.
The petition is disposed of accordingly. Direct service to Respondent No.3 is permitted.
14.8.2008 (Jayant Patel, J.) vinod Top