Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Mr. Abhay Kr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Pahari Mandir was being maintained by a Committee headed by Deputy Commissioner, Sub-Divisional Officer and other members in the light of byelaws made under the Society Registration Act and the said society was also registered under the Society Registration Act contained in annexure-6. He further submits that the petitioners are members of the said Society and to buttress this argument he refers to Annexure-10 and the membership contained in annexure-5. He then submits that the member of the society are Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi and Sub-Divisional Officer, Ranchi and other distinguished members including Managing Director of the Public Undertakings. He further submits that the said committee was taking all care of the said Ranchi Pahari Mandir. He then submits that in the year, 1908 the King of Palkot has made a gift to the then Commissioner and thereafter Palkot Park was established and later on the hill which was in dilapidated condition was developed after independence as there was only small shivling and in 1857 during the 1st War of Independence the freedom fighters were hanged on the "Fansi Tungri". He further submits that after the independence on 15 August, 1947 as mark of independence the devotees and the freedom fighters started hoisting National Flag and they also started to re-construct the dilapidated temple which was developed by the superseded committee being known as Ranchi Pahari Mandir Vikas Samiti. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that 1st Committee of Ranchi Pahari Mandir Vikas Samiti was notified vide memo dated 30.07.1992 and subsequently on 22.06.1993 the Adhoc Committee was notified thereafter the committee was working effectively and with utmost perfection of the people/devotees. He submits that whenever land sliding had happened in the Pahari Mandir in the year, 2009 from the south and that Samiti has taken all steps and all measures were taken and land sliding was protected. He then submits that has happened due to district administration as Deputy Commissioner and other higher officials of the district administration were in the Committee. Thereafter further steps have been taken for development of the Pahari Mandir. He submits that renovation work was also made for the facilities of the devotees and staircases were made. He then submits that proposal was moved for registration by the people and devotees for the Pahari Mandir to make out the day to day problems under the Society Registration Act and pursuant to that registration was made in the year, 2011-2012. By way of referring the provisions made in the bye-laws he submits that always the Deputy Commissioner has headed the said committee as a president and the post of secretary was held by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi. He submits that not only that even some of the members also relinquished the post to be headed by S.D.O. and District Forest Officer so that Pahari Mandir will be looked after properly. He further submits that Annexure-11 dated 08.07.2023 is the show-cause which is issued in the name of Pahari Shiv Mandir Vikas Samiti instead of Ranchi Pahari Mandir Vikas Samiti. By way of referring the said show cause he submits that reason is not assigned what has been violated by the said Ranchi Pahari Mandir Vikas Samiti. He further submits that the said show-cause notice is not issued to Ranchi Pahari Mandir Vikas Samiti. He refers to sections 58, 59, 60 of the Bihar (Jharkhand) Hindu Religious Act, 1950 and further sections 60 and 70 of the Act and submits that Section 60 of the said Act is with regard to budget and section 70 of the Act is with regard to fee of the Religious Trust. By way of referring Section 72 of the said Act, he submits that there is special provisions for suits for recovery of immovable property of religious trusts in certain cases. By way of referring section 73 of the said act he submits that there is provision of free inspection by Board of the document, register or record relating to property belonging to a religious trust. He submits that now the Adhoc Committee has taken over in absence of making any scheme in the light of Section 32 of the said Act and in view of that the remedy of the petitioners is only filing the writ petition. He further refers to Section 28 of the said Act and submits that the power of the Board is prescribed therein. By referring Sub-Section (h) of Section of Section 28 of the Act he submits that if whole of the condition made therein is not fulfilled then only supersession can be made. By way of referring section 26 he submits that the said section provides the power of the Board of general superintendence. He further submits that the land was donated by then Maharaja that finds place in the Bihar and Orissa District Gazetteers. He then submits that in absence of order no reason is assigned under section 29 of the Act, the writ petition is maintainable that too in the particular facts of the present case as after superseding the earlier committee, all the members are the political party except the Chairman of the said Trust. He further submits that this fact has been disclosed in para 23 to 25 of the writ petition that has not been controverted by the respondent no.2 in the counter affidavit. He relied in the case of "Dr. Subramanian Swamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others"

10. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that in absence of any authorization to the petitioner by the Society the writ petition has been filed and in view of that this writ petition itself is not maintainable. He refers to sub-section 3 and 4 of Section 29 of the Jharkhand Hindu Religious Trust Act and submits that in view of this provision the only remedy is before the District Judge by way of filing appeal and writ petition itself is not maintainable. He draws the attention of the Court to Section 57 of the Act and submits that the dispute can be only subject of the matter of the Civil Court only. He further refers to sub-section c, d, e, f, g and h of section 28 of the said Act and submits that provisions are made therein of action if such direction of respondent no.2 is not obeyed by religious party. He further draws the attention of the Court to Annexure-A and B and several pages and submits that several notices have been issued to the said committee and no response has been made in view of that contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is not tenable. He further submits that details of account was called by the respondent no.2 however the committee has not replied and for the expenditure of 1999-2000 the said account was provided in the year, 2000. He further draws the attention of the Court of sub- section 2-l of the said Act and submits that in the light of provision made therein the charitable and Religious Board can maintain the maintenance of any temple and in view of that if the petitioners are registered under the Society Registration Act then in the light of section 2 (l)) the petitioners are coming within the purview of Jharkhand Hindu Religious Trust Act. He refers to Section 79 and submits that this Act is having the over-riding effect upon other Acts. He submits that under section 70 there is provision of fee payable by religious trusts to Board and in view of that Board has rightly demanded the fee which has not been done by the said Trust. There is no illegality in passing of the said order. He distinguished the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the cases of "Hindu Public"(supra) and "Dr. Subramanian Swamy (supra). He submits that in the case of "Hindu Public (Supra) it has been held that religious and charitable Board can maintain the temple as has been held in that case and in view of that there is no illegality in the order passed by the respondent no.2. He submits that so far "Dr. Subramanian Swamy"(supra) case is concerned, the whole Act of the Madras state was considered and the fact of the that case is otherwise so far the present dispute is concerned. On these grounds, he submits that the writ petition is fit to be dismissed.