Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(i) Bai Virkor, D/o Mulsing Ramsing v/s Prajapati Damodar Bhogilal, 20(2) GLR 652 (relevant page 663)
(ii) Dahyabhai Ranabhai Vaghela v/s Bloom Dekor Ltd. & Ors. 1995(1) GLH 865
(iii) Ossein and Gelatine Manufacturers' Association of Indian v/s Modi Alkalies Ltd. and another, AIR 1990 SC 1744.

11. It is argued that no clear right to sue is emerging from the say of the plaintiffs against Acharya and that too with a prayer of declaration that defendant no. 1 is no more an Acharya of Southern Diocese where the plaintiffs are claiming themselves as disciples and devotees or followers of Vadtal Diocese of Shri Swaminarayan Sect headed by defendant no. 1 Acharya. Mr. Vakil has alleged "forum shopping" against the plaintiffs. However, there was no reason for them to get the order of withdrawal-return of the plaint on false representation. When there is no affidavit by the Advocate on record, it should not be accepted that the suit was presented in Ahmedabad Court through oversight. There was no reason for the plaintiffs to make false statement before Ahmedabad Court that it has no jurisdiction. The present suit, therefore, is likely to fail being successive suit on the alleged same cause. Drawing attention of the Court to the proceedings drawn by the trial Court more particularly from 6.9.2002 to 1.10.2002 the day on which the application exh. 5 was allowed, it is argued that ld. Presiding Judge was inclined to grant ex-parte injunction, but while confirming the injunction granted at the earliest, the point of jurisdiction and sustainability of the suit being a successive suit, was required to be decided at the earliest, then other seriously disputed facts such as giving of Diksha, alleged irregularities in Charan-Bhet, Dharmada or alleged fraud played with the trust qua the amount received against the foreign tour of defendant no. 1. Two major aspects in reference to the status qua the rights and obligations of Acharya is apparently divided in the scheme framed. One part can be addressed as religious duties and authority in religious matters and the second part can be addressed as temporal matters i.e. status as "custodian trustee". According to Mr. Vakil, in light of the provision to Clauses 6 & 7 of the scheme referred to hereinabove, there is no scope to hold an Acharya responsible for any wrong in temporal matters. The Scheme is nothing but a constitution. So, clauses 44 & 47 of the Scheme if read together, there is no scope of removal of Acharya. In absence of any specific clause as to removal of Acharya, the directions from the High Court is must. Undisputedly, the registration of the trust is under Section 18 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. The constitution of the Board of Managing Trustees is as per Clause-18 of the Scheme. Clause-18 requires to be read in reference to clauses 14, 16 & 17. So, Acharya is above the Board of Managing Trustees being a "custodian trustee". If a custodian trustee is required to be removed, the suit under Sec. 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act (hereinafter referred to as the BPT Act) requires to be filed. In case of necessity of removal of custodian trustee without proposing any change in the scheme of the High Court, the District Court should be approached in a suit filed under Sec. 50 of the BPT Act. Every suit of such or similar nature, according to Mr. Vakil is prepared under Sec. 80 of the BPT Act. Satsang Sabha had no authority to pass any resolution for removal of Acharya or to replace the custodian trustee. Satsang Mahasabha also can not dictate Acharya in temporal matters. Merely because Satsang Mahasabha has taken such or similar decision, would not acquire the jurisdiction over the matter. Mr. Vakil after reading relevant portions of "Desh Vibhag-no Lekh", "Shiksha-Patri", "Sansthan-nu-Jivan" and "Vachanamrut" being main holy and highly respected documents/verses, has pointed out that such Satsang Mahasabha is not recognised in any of the four documents/verses highly respected religious books in respect of temporal matters and such Satsang Mahasabha can not remove Acharya. Judgment of the ld. District Judge, Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No. 22/1902 mark 25/16 deals with "Desh Vibhag-no Lekh" and method of appointment of Acharya. Temporal management part is taken care of by the scheme framed by the High Court. Judgment of Gonda Court does not provide any guideline nor interpret any of the above four religious books/verses. The Judgment of Gonda Court is nothing but a solution and no congregation can take care of the situation which has been created by the resolution passed by Satsang Mahasabha in the present case. The judgment of Gonda Court was challenged by way of an appeal in Allahabad High Court. Mr. Vakil has taken me through the relevant pages of the judgment of Allahabad High Court i.e. pages 111 to 115 and pages 143 to 148 of Vol. 5 of the paper-book supplied to the Court during the course of hearing. Mr. Vakil has also drawn my attention on issues framed in the above-said Ahmedabad suit and the facts discussed by ld. District Judge in paras-12 to 16. It is submitted that congregation of Satsang Mahasabha has no right to remove Acharya. So, obviously therefore, such congregation has no right to appoint anybody as Acharya. The word "follower" is capable of and include all class of followers. The question posted by Mr. Vakil is that who is the judge? or who can judge Acharya ? Satsang Mahasabha is the mix and can not over throw the foundation placed by Lord Swaminarayan by remaining inside the sect. One misconduct of similar nature makes that follower "Vimukh" and assembly or congregation of such "vimukh" individual can not overthrow Acharya, are the questions which were required to be replied by the trial Court. Mr. Vakil for the purpose of cutting root of the resolution relied upon by the plaintiffs for the cause of the present suit, has also questioned the formation of Satsang Mahasabha and has submitted that very limited small group of persons have done this venture.

17. The present Acharya acting as an Acharya on the strength of the arrangements made by the orders of the Court and mainly on the facts and circumstances which have taken shape in the period in-between, can not be accepted or installed as Acharya unless it is approved by the appropriate Scheme. As there is no provision of removal of Acharya in the original scheme sanctioned by this High Court, the appellant no. 1 Acharya can not be prevented from discharging his religious and temporal duties of an Acharya. For that purpose, a suit as contemplated under the BPT Act is filed and relief to depose Acharya is granted. Bare resolution of so-called Satsang Mahasabha would not change the status of the present Acharya nor such SATSANG MAHASABHA can assume jurisdiction to pass such or similar resolution. Supervisory functions conferred on the Acharya and if appellant no. 1 Acharya is to be asked to remain outside, whether such decision can be said to have a decision related to administration only, is the question not properly replied by the ld. Civil Judge while dealing with the point of prima facie case. But it is relevant to note that considering the scheme, replacement of the Acharya or the restriction and fact of taking over of Diocese by successor, is not required to be decided by the High Court and it is not necessary to get the Scheme amended. The present Acharya has taken over from the custodian trustee Shri Narendraprasadji, the then Acharya and father of the present appellant no. 1 and appropriate entry ultimately came to be inserted in the Register maintained by the Charity Commissioner. As per the proceedings initiated under Change Report No. 220/1984, previously entry was made on 6.6.1984 and change report came to be granted by the Asstt. Charity Commissioner, Nadiad Region, Nadiad vide final order dated 20.11.1984. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the name of newly appointed Acharya and decision to depose the present appellant no. 1 be recorded by the Charity Commissioner, nor any relief has been prayed which would fall in the ambit of a suit which requires to be instituted with the prior approval/ sanction as per the Scheme of Sec. 50 R/w Sections 79 & 80 of BPT Act.

"80. Bar of Jurisdiction :
Save as expressly provided in this Act, no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act to be decided or dealt with by any officer or authority under this Act, and in respect of which the decision or order of such officer or authority has been made final and conclusive.

24. Having considered the nature of the reliefs prayed for, if cause for filing of the suit is considered in light of other proceedings which were initiated in the past and the fact that present appellant himself has filed a suit of similar nature and pressing for reliefs prayed therein, it is a matter not of dispute that there is no application as contemplated under Sec. 18 to 22 of the BPT Act or any one of the aforesaid sections. Sec. 79 of the BPT Act, as submitted, shall not have any application. It is true that the question of framing of the Scheme is covered under Sec. 50 & 51 of the BPT Act, but that by itself would not attract Sec. 80 of the said Act. The case of the plaintiffs is mainly based on :-

(v) intervention of the Court on occasions in regulating the conduct of Acharya or even Temple Board in a given set of circumstances in last about more than 100 years.
(vi) act of issuance of commands to Satsangis not to pay "Nam Vera".
(vii) hidden political motivation in the background of election process of the members of Temple Board under the Scheme and either giving or not giving Diksha irrespective of the recommendations made by Chief Kothari.

So in short, it will be difficult for this Court at this stage to say that the suit is barred because of the provisions of BPT Act including Sec. 80 of the said Act.