SANDHYA PANT versus DEEPAK RUWALI & ORS. on 11 August 2022

SANDHYA PANT

v.

DEEPAK RUWALI & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 5238 of 2022)

AUGUST 11, 2022

[INDIRA BANERJEE AND J. K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.]

Trust and charities: Shebait rights of the temple – Appellantand respondent nos 7 to 10-descendant/founder of the Chitai GoluDevta, discharging the duties of the shebait of the temple – WritPetition by respondent no 1 seeking direction to the respondentauthorities to constitute a registered society or trust for managementof the temple – Disposed of, without hearing the appellant andwithout deciding the appellant’s application for impleadment –Interference with – Held: Not called for – Chitai Golu Devta Templeis administered by the appellant and the respondents – It is notclear as to which heirs of the family are entitled to shebaitship rightsin respect of the Chitai Golu Devta Temple and there appears to bedisputes in this regard amongst family members – Furthermore, nospecific statute governing the Chitai Golu Devta Temple – As regardsthe issue of impleadment, the Courts attention was not drawn to thepending impleadment application of the appellant – Appellant couldhave appeared and made submissions if she had so chosen, evenwithout being added as party – In any case, other members of thefamily including the respondent Nos.7 to 10, who, according to theappellant were in the Mandir Samiti of which the appellant claimsto be Vice President were duly given an opportunity of hearing –Thus, the High Court did not commit any error in passing theimpugned order – Impleadment.

Dismissing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1 There is a difference in the traditional modeand manner of management of the Padmanabhaswamy Temple atThiruvananthapuram in respect of which the right of managementis vested with the Ruler of Travancore and the Chitai Golu DevtaTemple administered by the Appellant and the Respondents. Bethat as it may, even in the case of the Padmanabhaswamy Temple,the Court vested the Temple Committee constituted in terms of

407

A

B

C

DEF

GH

Aits order, with all the powers of management of the Ruler ofTravancore. [Para 42][424-A-B]

1.2 In the instant case, it is not exactly clear as to whichheirs of the Pant family are entitled to shebaitship rights in respectof the Chitai Golu Devta Temple and there appears to be disputesBin this regard amongst members of the Pant family. there is nospecific statute governing the Chitai Golu Devta Temple. [Para43, 45][424-C; 425-H]

1.3 The High Court has not committed any error in passingthe impugned order. The only question is, whether the orderCshould have been passed in the absence of the Appellant, withoutdeciding the Appellant’s application for impleadment. On a perusalof the judgment and order, it does not appear that anyone drewthe attention of the Court to pending impleadment application ofthe Appellant. The Appellant could have appeared and madesubmissions if she had so chosen, even without being added asDparty. In any case, other members of the Pant family includingthe Respondent Nos.7 to 10, who, according to the Appellantwere in the Mandir Samiti of which the Appellant claims to beVice President were duly given an opportunity of hearing. Thejudgment and order impugned is not interfered with. [ParaE46][426-A-C]

Goswami Shri Mahalaxmi Vahuji v. RanchhoddasKalidas and Ors. (1969) 2 SCC 853 : [1970] 2 SCR275; Jagdish Prasad v. Mahant Tribhuwan Puri (1987)Supp SCC 482 : 1987 (4) JT 509; Sri Marthanda VarmaFAnr. v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2021) 1 SCC 225 : [2020]9 SCR 974; Guruvayoor Devaswom ManagingCommittee and Another v. C. K. Rajan and Others(2003) 7 SCC 546 : [2003] 2 Suppl. SCR 619 – referredto.

Case Law Reference

G

[1970] 2 SCR 275[2020] 9 SCR 974[2003] 2 Suppl. SCR 619

referred to.Para 34referred to.Para 40referred to.Para 44

H

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5238of 2022.

From the Judgment and Order dated 19.11.2020 of the High Courtof Uttarakhand at Nainital in WP (PIL) No. 131 of 2018.

With

Civil Appeal No. 5239 of 2022

Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv., V. K. Shukla, Sugam Mishra, JayantaBhattacharyya, Ms. Saket Gautam, Miss Beena, Satish Kumar, Advs.for the Appellant.

Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Ashutosh Sharma,Advs. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by INDIRA BANERJEE, J.

Leave granted.

2. These appeals are against a final judgment and order dated19[th] November 2020 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand in aPublic Interest Litigation being Writ Petition (PIL) No.131 of 2018without hearing the Appellant and without deciding the Appellant’sapplication being CLMA No.7758 of 2020 for impleadment, pendingbefore the High Court.

3. According to the Appellant, Chitai Golu Devta Temple in Almorawas constructed in 1919 by late Pandit Keshav Dutt Pant and late BholaDutt Pant. As per a Report prepared by the Village Pradhan of GramSabha, Chitai Khasparja Tehsil Almora, the original rights in the templevested with late Jaikishan Pant. The Appellant is the daughter-in-law oflate Chaturanan Pant, a descendant of the said Jaikishan Pant. TheAppellant claims to be the Vice President of the Mandir Samiti whichwas formed in 2012. A translated copy of the said Report of the VillagePradhan of Gram Sabha, Chitai dated 8[th] September 1976 is enclosed tothe Paperbook.

4. According to the Appellant, the shebait rights of the Chitai GoluDevta Temple are as under:

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

5. In compliance of Ordinance No.16 issued by the Governmentof Uttar Pradesh on 6[th] October 1986, extending the UP Hindu PublicReligious Institutions (Prevention of Dissipation of Properties) Act 1962,Chaturanan Pant, since deceased made an application for registration ofEthe Chitai Golu Devta temple in the statutory form. In the said form itwas stated that the Chitai Golu Devta temple not being a public temple,the provisions of the said Act may not apply to the Chitai Golu Devtatemple.

6. On or about 29[th] October 1985, all the three main idols of theFtemple were registered under the Antiquities and Art Treasures Rules,1973 in the name of late Chaturanan Pant, father-in-law of the Appellant.

7. The Appellant has stated that, after the death of late ChaturananPant, his son Nalin Pant, since deceased, husband of the Appellant tookover the management of the temple along with other family members,Gthat is, the Respondent Nos. 7 to 10, who are sons of late DamodarPant. After the death of her husband Nalin Pant, the Appellant steppedinto his shoes.

8. On 5[th] June 2015, the Appellant and Respondent Nos.7 to 10opened a Saving Bank Account in the IDBI Bank in the name of GoluH

Devta Mandir Samiti, Chitai, Almora. It is claimed that an amount ofRs.8.56 lakhs is lying in deposit in the said account.

9. The Respondent No.1, Deepak Ruwali, an Advocate and aresident of Nainital engaged in social work, filed a Writ Petition in publicinterest, being W.P. (PIL) No.131 of 2018, seeking a Writ of Mandamusdirecting the Respondent Authorities to constitute a registered society ortrust for management of the temple.

10. According to the Appellant, Ashutosh Pant, Smt. Lajja Pant,Sh. Paritosh Pant and other family members of the Appellant got thePublic Interest Litigation (PIL) filed through the Respondent No.1 foroblique reasons. According to the Appellant, an application made by theAppellant along with the Respondent Nos.7 to 10 for registration of theGolu Devta Mandir Samiti has been kept pending because of the PublicInterest Litigation.

11. On 11[th] September 2018, Ashutosh Pant and other familymembers filed objections before the Registrar of Societies, Almora andDistrict Magistrate, Almora, hereinafter referred to as the “DistrictMagistrate”, stating that objections should be considered beforeregistration of the Mandir Samiti and other persons may be included inthe Mandir Samiti.

12. On 18[th] September 2018, the District Magistrate constituted aFive Member Committee for inquiry with regard to the complaint madeby Ashutosh Pant and others. On 1[st] October, 2018, the Members of theCommittee constituted by the District Magistrate called for a meeting tolook into the issues raised by Ashutosh Pant in his complaint. Accordingto the Appellant, only Ashutosh Pant, Paritosh Pant, Vasudha Pant andLajja Pant were called to the meeting. The Appellant states that theAppellant and the Respondent Nos.7 to 10 who were discharging theduties of shebait of the temple were not called for the meeting.

13. On 8[th] October 2018, the District Magistrate allowed therepresentation of Ashutosh Pant and others for constitution of a templecommittee like the Jageshwar Temple Committee.

14. On 30[th] November 2018, the District Magistrate filed his replyin the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the High Court. On 7[th] January2020, Vasudha Pant, wife of Ashutosh Pant filed an interventionapplication in the PIL which was numbered CLMA No.285 of 2018.The application was allowed by an order dated 10[th] January 2020.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A15. On 27[th] February 2020, the Respondent No.1 moved anapplication for impleadment of the Respondent Nos.7 to 10 but excludedthe Appellant who claims to be Vice President of the Mandir Samiti.

16. According to the Appellant, a copy of the Writ Petition filed bythe Respondent No.1 was served on the Respondent Nos. 7 to 10 on 1[st]BMarch 2020. However, by an order dated 4[th] March 2020, the HighCourt disposed of the PIL, without giving the Respondent Nos. 7 to 10any opportunity to file their response. The High Court directed theRespondent No.6 to consider the report of District Magistrate and takedecision for the constitution of an independent Managing Committee foradministration of the non-religious activities of the temple.C

17. On 26[th] June 2020, the Appellant, as daughter-in-law of lateChaturanan Pant filed a Review Application being MCC No.257 of 2020in the High Court, seeking review of the said order dated 4[th] March2020 passed in the PIL. While the Review Application was pending on4[th] July 2020, the District Magistrate constituted a new ManagementDCommittee of the temple on 9[th] July 2020.

18. On 14[th] July 2020, the Appellant filed an independent WritPetition (M/S) No.1096 of 2020 before the High Court. According to theAppellant, the Writ Petition was filed in view of some observations madeby the High Court when the Counsel mentioned the Review Application,Ewhich had not been called on for hearing on 9[th] July 2020, though it hadbeen listed on that day. The Single Bench of the High Court however,dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that an independent committeehad been constituted in compliance of the order of the Division Benchdated 4[th] March 2020 and the Appellant should move an application beforeFthe Division Bench. On 5[th] August 2020, the Appellant filed a SpecialAppeal No.140 of 2020 against the order dated 27[th] July 2020 passed bythe Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition (M/S) No.1096 of 2020.

19. By an order dated 16[th] September 2020, the Division Benchallowed an Application being CLMA No.4534 of 2020 filed by theGRespondent Nos.7 to 10 and recalled its order dated 4[th] March 2020. Inview of the order dated 16[th] September 2020, Special Appeal No.140 of2020 filed by the Appellant became infructuous and was accordinglydisposed of on 18[th] September 2020. The Review Application being MCCNo.257 of 2020 filed by the Appellant was, however, dismissed on theground that it had been filed by a third party, who was not party to theHproceedings.

SANDHYA PANT v. DEEPAK RUWALI & ORS.[INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]

20. The Appellant submitted that the judgment and order dated 4[th]March 2020 had been recalled on 16[th] September 2020 before the DistrictAdministration could take over the management of the temple. The ChitaiGolu Devta Temple is being managed by the Mandir Samiti in existencesince 2011-2012.

21. On 22 September 2020, the Appellant filed an application forimpleadment being CLMA No.7758 of 2020 in the PIL filed by theRespondent No.1. The said application for impleadment was listed ondiverse dates in September, October and November, 2020, but the samewas not heard or decided. By the impugned judgment and order dated19[th] November 2020, the Division Bench disposed of the PIL withoutdeciding the application for impleadment filed by the Appellant.

22. By the impugned judgment and order, the Division Benchdisposed of the Public Interest Litigation, directing the ManagingCommittee constituted pursuant to the order of the High Court dated04.03.2020 to continue, observing that there were serious disputes withregard to shebait rights in the temple. According to the Appellant, theimpugned judgment and order was passed without hearing the Appellant.The High Court observed and held:

“11. The claim of respondent nos.5 to 8 cannot be said to bea mere bald assertion or a pleading, not backed by facts.They have produced substantial material to prove their interest.The material produced by them date back to more than 100years. Whether these documents are valid, appropriate or not,cannot be decided in a proceeding under Article 226 of theConstitution of India. These are material that have to be testedand proved in an appropriate civil court. Therefore, it is sufficeto hold that the claim of respondent nos.5 to 8 are prima faciebacked by material and, therefore, cannot be brushed aside.The material produced by the respondents, require to beproved by them in a court of law.

12. Therefore, considering the rival contentions and thematerial available, we are of the considered view that theseare not matters that could be determined in a public interestlitigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thereare serious rights which have to be agitated before anappropriate forum. The rights of the parties cannot be A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

Adetermined merely through affidavits filed before this Court.The plea of the writ petitioner that a selected family is misusingits powers and conducting the Pooja etc. the hereditary rights,as claimed by respondent nos.5 to 8 based on the variousdocuments produced by them as well as the stand of the Statewith regard to the status of the land etc., are serious mattersBof dispute of right and interest. The same can only bedetermined before an appropriate civil court throughadequate evidence, or otherwise. It is for anyone to establishthe fact that it is they who have an interest or a right in thetemple. It is, therefore not proper for this Court, to record anyCfinding, based on the affidavit filed, not only by the petitionerbut even by respondent nos.5 to 8 as well as the State to holdthat the land belongs to the State or not, whether respondentNos.5 to 8 have a shebait right or not, whether the templefunds have been misused or not, etc. These are all issues tobe determined only through a full fledged trial.

D

D

13. The fact of the magnitude of the number of devotees whoare attracted by this temple, cannot be overlooked. It is not atemple that has been created recently. It is undisputed by all,that this is a very ancient temple which attracts lakhs ofdevotees every year. Unimagined faith is deposed in the deity,EPublic sentiments are also issues to be considered delicatelyby the Court. These are not just matters of interpretation oflaw that is called for. The sensitive rights of the devotees vis-à-vis the rights of persons to exercise the shebait rights etc.have all to be considered minutely. It is therefore just andFappropriate, that this Court refrains from granting anydeclaration as to who is the actual person who has a right toexercise the shebait rights or not etc. Therefore, we leave openthe question for determination before an appropriate civilcourt. Whichever party claims its rights over the shebait rightsGor any other right, pertaining to the temple or any other rightrelatable to the temple, is entitled to approach the civil courtfor necessary relief. They would have to establish and succeedbefore the trial court to obtain any decree in their favour.”

23. A Counter Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the RespondentState wherein it is stated that pursuant to the High Court’s directionH

and the findings of the Inquiry Committee, the District Magistrateproposed to form a Temple Management Committee with the followingmembers :-

(i) District Magistrate, Almora as the Chairman

(ii) Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Almora as the Deputy Chairman

(iii) Chief Treasurer, Almora as the Ex-officio Member

(iv) District Tourism Development Officer as Ex-officio Member

(v) Prabandhak/Manager, Chitai Golu Devta Mandir Samiti asa member

(vi) A representative of the priest as a member

(vii) A specially invited member.

24. It is stated that a detailed criteria of eligibility was laid downfor non-government members. The order stated that the Committee wouldmake bye-laws for development of the temple and for sharing thedonations with the priests. The Committee would also work to developreligious tourism by developing facilities relating to health, education,electricity, drinking water and hygiene in or around the temple precincts.

25. It is further stated that the State has set up the Committeeonly to manage the non-religious affairs of the temple. The Pant family/the Appellant and the Respondent Nos.7 to 10 are continuing to conduct‘Pooja’ in the temple, as per their rites, tradition and internal arrangement.

26. By an order dated 15[th] June 2020, the Secretary, Tourism,Government of Uttarakhand being the Respondent No.6, in complianceof the order of the High Court dated 4[th] March 2020, directed the DistrictMagistrate to constitute the Committee of the Chitai Golu Devta Templein line of Jageshwar Temple Management Committee.

27. On 4[th] July 2020, a Trust Deed was executed by the DistrictMagistrate for constituting the Temple Management Committee for thepurpose of management, administration and governance of the temple.The Trust Deed was duly registered with the office of the Sub-RegistrarOffice, Almora.

28. On 6[th] July 2020, the District Magistrate convened a meetingof members of the Temple Management Committee where it wasdecided:

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A(i)Toilets would be constructed for the devotees

(ii) Parking space at the temple would be improved

(iii) a tank for rainwater harvesting would be constructed

(iv) Sub-Divisional Magistrate would initiate proceeding forBappointment of the representative of the Priest in the TempleCommittee.

(v) Sub-Divisional Magistrate would appoint Manager of theTemple Committee as per the procedure adopted in theJageshwar Temple.

C

C29. On 8[th] July 2020, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate conducted apublic meeting at the premises of the temple which was attended bynearly 67 people including Government Officers, Pujaris and localresidents. The Appellant and the Respondent Nos. 7 to 9 also attendedthe meeting.D30. The minutes of the meeting were drawn up taking note of the

D30. The minutes of the meeting were drawn up taking note of thesuggestions of those who attended the meeting for improvement of thetemple and the adjoining areas. Secondly, the suggestions were to makearrangements for availability of water at the temple, to put up solar panelsat the temple premises, to lay down a detailed system for wastemanagement and to make the temple plastic free. It was also decidedEthat action would be taken to generate self-employment, particularly oflocal Kumaon women, by promoting local handicrafts, sale of organic‘prashad’ made of local sourced fruits, eco-friendly bags for carrying‘prashad’ and also to develop a library. Thirdly, it was decided that anarrangement would be made to set up a budget dharamshala, CCTVFcameras, marriage hall, live telecast of the arti at the temple. Furthermeeting was held on 23[rd] July 2020. A decision was taken with regard toappointment of Manager of the temple and opening of bank account.

31. By the impugned judgment and order dated 19[th] November2020, the High Court declined to record any finding on shebait rights orGmisappropriation of funds by those in management, based on the affidavitsfiled by the parties. The High Court directed that any person claiming aright, title or shebait rights could file a suit before May 2021. Theindependent Management Committee formed pursuant to the HighCourt’s order dated 4[th] March 2020 was directed to continue, unless anorder/interim order application was filed in any civil suit.H

32. On behalf of the State, it was submitted that, given theimportance and sanctity of the Chitai Golu Devta Temple, and in view ofa letter alleging mismanagement received from Ashutosh Pant and variousresidents of the nearby village, the District Magistrate had formed afive-member Inquiry Committee, which had submitted its Report on 8[th]October 2018, with the recommendation that a Committee similar to aCommittee of Jageshwar Temple be constituted to administer the ChitaiGolu Devta Temple and a detailed set of regulations should be made forproper management of the temple. It was emphasized on behalf of theState that priests and pujaris, the Appellant and the Respondent Nos.7 to10 were to continue to conduct Pooja in the temple as per their rites andrituals. The State would not interfere in the religious activities of thetemple or the shebait rights of the shebaits.

33. On behalf of the State, it is also contended that the Chitai GoluDevta Temple is a public temple and the State can regulate its non-religious affairs. As noted by the High Court, the temple is visited bythousands of people and the manner in which the non-religious affairsare managed are within the realm of executive control. The funds receivedby the temple cannot be misappropriated and must be used for thedevelopment of the temple and for providing amenities to those who visitthe temple.

34. On behalf of the State reliance has been placed on the judgmentof this Court in Goswami Shri Mahalaxmi Vahuji v. RanchhoddasKalidas and Ors.[1] where this Court laid down the criteria fordifferentiating between a private temple and a public temple. This Courtheld:

“15. Though most of the present day Hindu public templeshave been founded as public temples, there are instances ofprivate temples becoming public temples in course of time.Some of the private temples have acquired a great deal ofreligious reputation either because of the eminence of itsfounder or because of other circumstances. They haveattracted large number of devotees. Gradually in course oftime they have become public temples. Public temples aregenerally built or raised by the public and the deity installedto enable the members of the public or a section thereof to AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aoffer worship. In such a case the temple would clearly be apublic temple. If a temple is proved to have originated as apublic temple, nothing more is necessary to be proved to showthat it is a public temple but if a temple is proved to haveoriginated as a private temple or its origin is unknown or lostin antiquity then there must be proof to show that it is beingBused as a public temple. In such cases the true character ofthe particular temple is decided on the basis of variouscircumstances. In those cases the courts have to addressthemselves to various questions such as:

“(1) Is the temple built in such imposing manner that it mayCprima facie appear to be a public temple?

(2) Are the members of the public entitled to worship in thattemple as of right;

(3) Are the temple expenses met from the contributions madeDby the public?(4) Whether the Sevas and Utsavas conducted in the templeare those usually conducted in public temples?

(5) Have the management as well as the devotees been treatingthat temple as a public temple?”E

35. The Chitai Golu Devta Temple has acquired fame, is visitedfor years by thousands of devotees and may be deemed a public temple.Devotees pray for fulfilment of their wishes and offer bells which arehung at the temple. Furthermore, the land on which the temple is located,as well as the land surrounding the temple belongs to the State. As arguedFon behalf of the State, the appointment of an independent ManagingCommittee for managing the temple is a secular matter and can beregulated by the State. In Jagdish Prasad v. Mahant Tribhuwan Puri[2],this Court held:- “6. We heard counsel on both sides and also gave our anxiousGconsideration to the various questions raised in this appeal.We are of the view that the finding recorded by the High Courtthat Ram Mandir is a public temple is correct and does notcall for interference. The High Court has however, not gone

into the other questions raised in the suit as to themismanagement of the temple and the right of the persons toact as shebait of the temple. In the view that we propose totake, it may not be necessary to go into all these questions.Ram Mandir has been declared to be a public temple. Thereis no deed conferring the right on any person to manage thetemple exclusively. There is a rival claim for the right ofmanagement. It would be, therefore, proper to frame a schemefor management. We therefore, direct the District Judge toframe a scheme for proper management of the temple. In thatscheme, Plaintiff 1 since deceased by his LRs and thedefendant be given equal rights in the management. If theyare not able to cooperate with each other, they may be givensuch exclusive rights in the alternate periods of six months orone year. The scheme also may provide the right to nominatethe successor of Plaintiff 1 and the defendant for managementof the temple. We, however, make it clear that the directionsgiven by the trial court against the defendant in regard to themissing articles of the temple is kept undisturbed and thedefendant shall be asked to restore all the articles to thetemple. The court will also take care to see that the templepremises or any other building appertaining thereto is notutilised for the private use of the parties or their relations.These are only some of the suggestions. The District Judgewill take into consideration other aspects also while framinga proper scheme. The scheme shall be framed within six monthsfrom the date of receipt of this order.”

36. On the face of the averments made in the pleadings in theHigh Court and/or in this Court, it is apparent that there are inter sedisputes between members of the Pant family over the management ofthe Chitai Golu Devta Temple. Prior to the formation of the TempleManagement Committee, even the non-religious affairs of the ChitaiGolu Devta Temple, such as temple upkeep, maintenance, sanitationetc. were looked after by the Pant family members. The donationsreceived from pilgrims were allegedly used by the Pant family for theirpersonal use and not for improving the facilities at the temple. It wasalso argued that the Appellant owns and runs a marriage hall adjacent tothe temple and also runs a shop. The Appellant is, therefore, not facingany financial hardship as such.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A37. In passing the impugned order the Division Bench took noteof the following factors:

(i) The contention of the State that as per the Khatauni ofFasli Year 1411-1416, that the land occupied by the GoluDevta Temple at Chitai had been recorded in the revenueBrecords, as Non Z.A. Khatauni Category 10(2), which isgovernment land;

(ii) There was a serious dispute with regard to the shebait rightsof the persons who conduct the pooja in respect of the temple.Whether the documents produced by the Respondent Nos.7Cto 10 were valid or genuine documents, would have to betested and proved in an appropriate Civil Court.

(iii) The magnitude of the number of devotees is overlooked.The temple is an ancient temple. Public sentiments areinvolved.

D38. There can be no doubt that the State has the right to controlthe non-religious affairs of the temple situated on Government land andensure that donations received from the public are not misappropriatedor wasted.

39. It is the contention of the Appellant that the descendant/founderEof the temple has the right to manage the temple. However, when prayersare being conducted for generations and there are many branches of thefamily, disputes inter se between the members of the family have to besettled by institution of a civil suit. The High Court rightly held that thoseclaiming any right, title or any shebaits right, which would include theFappellant, could file a suit. The interest of the appellant is protected.

40. Mr. Gupta appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted thatwhen an idol is installed and a temple is constructed, shebaitship is vestedin the founder and unless the founder himself has disposed of the shebaitshipin a particular manner, or there is some usage or custom or circumstanceshowing different mode, the shebaitship like any other species of heritableGproperty follows the line of inheritance from the founder; and it is not opento the Court to lay down a new rule of succession or alter the rule ofsuccession. In support of his submission, Mr. Gupta cited Sri MarthandaVarma Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors.[3].

41. In Marthanda Varma (supra), this Court held:- “152. Consistent with the stand that the Temple is a publicTemple and that no remuneration at any stage was derived inthe past or would be aimed at in future, a suggestion wasmade on behalf of the appellants in the form of a note inresponse to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the State.In the said note, which is set out in detail in para 64hereinabove, the appellants have suggested the compositionof an Administrative Committee, and of an Advisory Committee.Broadly, it is suggested that the Administrative Committee beformed comprising of five Members, the Chairperson beinga retired Indian Administrative Service Officer of the rank ofSecretary to the Government of Kerala; the other fourmembers being:

(i) a nominee of the trustee;

(ii) the Chief Thantri of the Temple;

(iii) a nominee of the Government of Kerala; and

(iv) a Member to be nominated by the Ministry of Culture, theGovernment of India.

In terms of Para 8 of the note, the trustee that is to say theManager or shebait of the Temple would be guided by theadvice given by the Advisory Committee.

153. On the other hand, the suggestion made on behalf ofthe State is to follow the model statutorily enacted forGuruvayoor Devaswom, and thus the Managing Committeewould be of eight Members comprising of two ex-officiomembers, namely, Padmanabhadasa and the Senior Thantri;while the other six members would be nominated by the Hindusamong the Council of Ministers; one of them being memberof the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes while one beinga woman, and the other being a representative of theemployees of the Temple.

***

157. The provisions of the TC Act with respect to theadministration of the Temple are clear:

A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

157.1. Under Section 18(2), the administration shall beconducted. “Subject to the control and supervision of theruler of Travancore, by an Executive Officer appointed byhim.”

157.2. ”Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple Committee”comprised of three members nominated by the ruler ofTravancore in terms of Section 20 is to advise the ruler ofTravancore in the discharge of his functions.

158. The statute has thus vested the power of appointing theExecutive Officer and of forming the Advisory Committee, inthe ruler of Travancore. In the note, the appellants havestated:

158.1. ”The trustee shall delegate his powers ofadministration under Section 18(2)” to the AdministrativeCommittee which “shall administer the Temple through anExecutive Officer to be appointed by the Committee”.

158.2. On all policy matters, the trustee shall be guided bythe advice of the Advisory Committee.

159. Having given our anxious consideration to the rivalsuggestions, the composition of the Committees as suggestedby the appellants deserves acceptance, especially in lightof the conclusions arrived at by us that the Managership orthe shebaitship of the Temple continues with the Family. Asagainst the administration contemplated by Chapter III ofPart I of the TC Act in the hands of the ruler of Travancorein absolute terms, the course now suggested by the appellantsis quite balanced. The composition of the AdministrativeCommittee as suggested is broadbased and would not beloaded in favour or against the trustee. However,considering the fact that the present interim AdministrativeCommittee headed by the District Judge is in seisin for thelast more than five years, and various District Judges asChairpersons of the Committee conducted themselves quitewell, in our view, a minor change in the AdministrativeCommittee suggested by the appellants in their note is calledfor. Instead of a retired Indian Administrative Service Officerof the rank of Secretary to the Government of Kerala as the SANDHYA PANT v. DEEPAK RUWALI & ORS.[INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]

Chairperson of the Administrative Committee, in the interestof justice, the District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram shall bethe Chairperson of the Administrative Committee. Needlessto say that the present Chairperson of the InterimAdministrative Committee shall continue to be theChairperson so long as he holds the post of the DistrictJudge, Thiruvananthapuram. The composition of theAdvisory Committee will ensure that the administration ofthe Temple is conducted in a fair and transparent manner.

160. We, therefore, accept the suggestions made by theappellants in their note adverted to in detail in para 64hereinabove with regard to the constitution of theAdministrative Committee and the Advisory Committee subjectto the modification with respect to the Chairperson of theAdministrative Committee as stated in the precedingparagraph. Appellant 1 shall file an appropriate affidavit ofundertaking within four weeks of this judgment in terms ofPara 1 of the note and also agreeing to the modification asstated above. The affidavit of undertaking so filed shall bebinding on Appellant 1 and all his successors.

***

162. In terms of the note submitted by the appellants, thepowers of “the ruler of Travancore” under Section 18(2) ofthe TC Act shall stand delegated to the AdministrativeCommittee while the Advisory Committee shall be deemed tobe the Committee constituted in terms of Section 20 of the TCAct. It is made clear that all the members including theChairpersons of the Administrative Committee and theAdvisory Committee must be Hindus and fulfil the requirementsin Section 2(aa) of the TC Act. All the other Committeesconstituted in terms of various orders passed by this Courtshall continue for four months, and it shall be up to theAdvisory Committee to consider whether the services of thoseCommittees are required or not. It must also be stated that thepresent security arrangements as deployed by the StateGovernment shall be continued, but the expenses in that behalfshall be borne by the Temple hereafter.

AB

C

D

EF

G

H

AB

C

D

EF

G

H

A42. There is a difference in the traditional mode and manner ofmanagement of the Padmanabhaswamy Temple at Thiruvananthapuramin respect of which the right of management is vested with the Ruler ofTravancore and the Chitai Golu Devta Temple administered by theAppellant and the Respondents. Be that as it may, even in the case ofthe Padmanabhaswamy Temple, the Court vested the Temple CommitteeBconstituted in terms of its order, with all the powers of management ofthe Ruler of Travancore.

A

43. In the instant case, it is not exactly clear as to which heirs ofthe Pant family are entitled to shebaitship rights in respect of the ChitaiGolu Devta Temple and there appears to be disputes in this regard amongstCmembers of the Pant family.

44. The judgment in Guruvayoor Devaswom ManagingCommittee and Another v. C. K. Rajan and Others[4], cited by Mr.Gupta was rendered in the facts and circumstances of the case ofGuruvayoor Temple. In this case, the Court held:-D

“56. The case at hand does not fall in any of theaforementioned categories, where a PIL could be entertained.

57. No reported decision has also been brought to our noticewhere a public interest litigation was entertained in a similarmatter.E

58. We have also not come across any case so far where thefunctions required to be performed by statutory functionarieshad been rendered redundant by a court by issuing directionsupon usurpation of statutory power. The right of a personFbelonging to a particular religious denomination maysometimes fall foul of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitutionof India. Only whence the fundamental right of a person isinfringed by the State an action in relation thereto may bejustified. Any right other than the fundamental rightscontained in Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of IndiaGmay either flow from a statute or from the customary laws.Indisputably, a devotee will have a cause of action to initiatean action before the High Court when his right under statutorylaw is violated. He may also have a cause of action by reason of action or inaction on the part of the State or a statutoryauthority; an appropriate order is required to be passed or adirection is required to be issued by the High Court. In somecases, a person may feel aggrieved in his individual capacity,but the public at large may not.

59. It is trite, where a segment of the public is not interestedin the cause, a public interest litigation would not ordinarilybe entertained.

60. It is possible to contend that the Hindus in general andthe devotees visiting the temple in particular are interested inproper management of the temple at the hands of the statutoryfunctionaries. That may be so but the Act is a self-containedcode. Duties and functions are prescribed in the Act and theRules framed thereunder. Forums have been createdthereunder for ventilation of the grievances of the affectedpersons. Ordinarily, therefore, such forums should be movedat the first instance. The State should be asked to look intothe grievances of the aggrieved devotees, both as parenspatriae as also in discharge of its statutory duties.

***

63. The High Court should not have proceeded simply tosupplant, ignore or bypass the statute. The High Court hasnot shown any strong and cogent reasons for an Administratorto continue in an office even after expiry of his tenure. Itappears from the orders dated 7-2-1993 that the High Courtwithout cogent and sufficient reason allowed the Administratorto continue in office although his term was over and he wasposted elsewhere. He also could not have been conferredpowers wider than Section 17 of the Act. The High Courttook over the power of appointment of the Commissionerbypassing the procedure set out in the Act by calling uponthe Government to furnish the names of 5 IAS officers to theCourt so that it could exercise the power of appointment ofthe Commissioner.”

45. Unlike the Guruvayoor Temple which was governed byGuruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee constituted under theGuruvayoor Devaswom Act, 1978, there is no specific statute governingthe Chitai Golu Devta Temple.

A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

A46. In our considered view, the High Court has not committed anyerror in passing the impugned order. The only question is, whether theorder should have been passed in the absence of the Appellant, withoutdeciding the Appellant’s application for impleadment. On a perusal ofthe judgment and order, it does not appear that anyone drew the attentionof the Court to pending impleadment application of the Appellant. TheBAppellant could have appeared and made submissions if she had sochosen, even without being added as party. In any case, other membersof the Pant family including the Respondent Nos.7 to 10, who, accordingto the Appellant were in the Mandir Samiti of which the Appellant claimsto be Vice President were duly given an opportunity of hearing. We areCnot inclined to interfere with the judgment and order impugned.

47. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.

Nidhi Jain

Appeals dismissed.

D

E

F

G

H