Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The petitioners challenge the order dated 21.5.2001 passed by the Administrative Tribunal, Goa in Devasthan Appeal No. 46/01 as being contrary to the provisions of law comprised under the Regulations governing Hindu Temples (Devasthans) of Goa, Daman & Diu in terms of Diploma Legislative No. 615 dated 30.3.1933 and amended by Diploma Legislative No. 1898 dated 29-5-1959 (hereinafter called as "the said Devasthan Regulations").

2. The few facts relevant for the decision are that:

The Mahajans of Shree Bhimika Devasthan at Chopdem, Pernem Goa and the said Devasthan are governed by the provisions of the said Devasthan Regulations. On 31.12.1999, the Managing Committee of the said Devasthan was dissolved by the Government in exercise of powers under the said Devasthan Regulations and the Mamlatdar of Pernem was appointed as the Administrator in place of the Committee for the day today management of the said Devasthan. On 5.1.2000, the respondent No. 2, the then Mamlatdar of Pemem who was Administrator of the said Devasthan issued an order appointing 5 persons to represent and/or assist him in the management of the Devasthan and to attend the day today rituals. On 7.1.2000, the Government issued an order appointing Bhagirath Gaonkar as the Chairman of the Ad hoc Committee of the said Devasthan. The said order dated 7.1.2000 was challenged by the respondent No. 3 by filing Writ Petition No. 5/2000. However, the said writ petition was withdrawn pursuant to the Government withdrawing the order dated 7.1.2000 and further directing the Mamlatdar of Pernem to manage the day today affairs of the Devasthan till the new Managing Committee was elected. Simultaneously, the respondent No. 2 was also directed to hold elections to the Managing Committee of the Devasthan within six weeks from the date of the said order. Consequently, the Mamlatdar published the list of capable members in accordance with the provisions of the Devasthan Regulations and by notice published in the daily "Gomantak" invited objections to the said list. The said list was published on 22.2.2000. The respondent No. 3 filed certain objections to the said list on 24.2.2000. The respondent No. 2 after hearing the parties, by its order dated 8.3.2000 rejected the objections filed by the respondent No. 3. The elections thereupon were scheduled to take place on 11.3.2000. The respondents No. 3 and 4 meanwhile filed an appeal before the Administrative Tribunal being Devasthan Appeal No. 29/2000 against the order of the Mamlatdar passed on 8.3.2000 since in terms of the statement made in Writ Petition No. 5/2000, the elections were required to be held within six weeks from 17.1.2000, the day on which the writ petition was withdrawn and that period had already expired. The Government filed Misc. Civil Application No. 346/2000 seeking extension of time, more particularly in the circumstances where the Administrative Tribunal had stayed the election proceedings. The said Misc. Civil Application was disposed of by this Court directing the Authorities to hold elections after disposal of the Devasthan Appeal No. 29/2000, which was then pending before the Administrative Tribunal. On 11.10.2000, the Administrative Tribunal dismissed the Devasthan Appeal as being not maintainable against the order dated 8.3.2000 passed by the Mamlatdar in his capacity as Administrator in place of the Managing Committee of the Devasthan. The said order of the Tribunal was sought to be challenged by the respondent No. 3 by filing Writ Petition No. 364/2000 which came to be dismissed by the Order dated 9.1.2001. The respondent No. 3, thereafter, presented an appeal before the Mamlatdar, respondent No. 2 on 31.1.01 against its order dated 8.3.2000 to be considered by the General Body of the Devasthan in terms of the provisions comprised under the said Devasthan Regulations. The said appeal was accompanied by an application praying for condonation of delay in filing the appeal by the respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 2 pursuant to the said appeal and the application, issued two notices by which General Body of the Devasthan was sought to be summoned for meeting on 27.3.2001 to discuss and deliberate upon the said appeal and the application filed by respondent No. 3. Second notice was also issued to the Mahajans calling upon them to attend the said meeting and to elect a new Managing Committee for the trienium of 2000 to 2003 at the meeting to be held on 28.3.01. Both these notices were issued on 13.3.2001. The petitioners preferred an appeal against the said notice dated 13.3.01 whereby the respondent No. 2 had sought to convene a general body meeting to discuss and deliberate upon the appeal and the application filed by respondents No. 3 and 4 on the ground that the notice issued in the appeal filed by the respondent was without jurisdiction. The said appeal was registered as Devasthan Appeal No. 46/01 and on 23.3.01, the Tribunal passed an interim order staying the proceedings which were scheduled to take place on 27.3.01 to discuss and deliberate upon the appeal and the application filed by respondents No. 3 and 4. It appears that simultaneously, respondent No. 3 also filed a suit against the said second notice issued by respondent No. 2 for holding elections and therein an exparte order came to be passed on 23.3.01, restraining the respondent No. 2 to hold elections and the said order was challenged by the petitioners by filing Writ Petition No. 93/2001 and this Court under order dated 27.3.01 stayed the order of the trial Court further directing the respondent No. 2 to proceed with the elections, by re-notifying the schedule for the elections in terms of the Devasthan Regulations and, accordingly, the elections for the Manging Committee of the said Devasthan were held on 7.4.01. On 21.5.01, the Administrative Tribunal dismissed the Devasthan Appeal No. 46/01 and directed the respondent No. 2 to call General Body Meeting in terms of Article 250 of the Devasthan Regulation within 15 days to discuss and deliberate upon the appeal and the application filed by respondents No. 3 and 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have filed the present petition.

3. Drawing attention to Articles 26, 250 and 255 of the said Devasthan Regulation, as well as Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in terms of the said provisions of law, the appeal against the order of the Mamlatdar or the Administrator appointed in place of the Administrative Committee, in relation to the objections raised in respect of inclusion or exclusion of the names of the capable members for being entitled to vote and contest the elections for the Managing Committee, has to be filed within 10 days and in case the aggrieved party fails to present such appeal within the period of 10 days, the General Body of the Devasthan does not enjoy jurisdiction to entertain or deal with such an appeal. In view of the specific provisions comprised under Section 29(2) and bearing in mind the provisions of the said Devasthan Regulations being a special statute dealing with the affairs relating to Devasthan in the State of Goa and the provisions of law comprised under Article 255 of the said Devasthan Regulations being specifically providing clear bar for entertaining an appeal preferred beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the said Devasthan Regulations, the provisions of the said regulations would prevail over the provisions of Limitation Act and the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 thereof would not apply to such proceedings. Attention was also drawn to the decisions in cases of Sakuru. v. Tanaji ; Mohd. Ashfaq v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U.P. and Ors. and Lachhman Das Arora v. Ganeshi Lal and Ors. .