WP(C)/28/2007 of Karmapa Charitable Trust and Ors. Vs State of Sikkim and Ors on 1 October 2007

ELj==

IN THE HIGH COUFtT OF SIKKiMOF]DEF= SHEETWrit Petition .(C)

I

No. 28 of 2oo7 -`

Karmapa CharitablePet.froner / Appellant

Versus

E`

Tae St.ate of Sikkim & others

Bespondent

Order with SignatureBefore other details are mentioned it has tobe stated in the beginning, and emphasized, andemphasized again, that the suit is at the instanceof persons who have a long and steep uphill taskto establish their right or identity to interfere with .the workings of the Rumtek Monastery, a wellknown and fanous monastery here. Theplaintiffs, including the plaintiffs 2 and 3 supportthe case that one Thaye Dolje is the 17th Karmapawho is entitled to assume the office after the deathof the 16th Karmapa in 1981. A Karmapa is a veryhigh, the hichest, head of a sect of TibetanBuddhists. This person, as was told to the Courton behalf of the applicant, allegedly resides inKalimpong. This is said with a lot of hesitationand the hesitation can be wen understood becausethe self proclaimed Kamapa has apparently nopapers to enter the State of Sikkin.The .plaintiff No. 3 who claims to be theShamarpa under the said Karmapa also does nothave papers for entering Si]ddm and has fifed awrit which would help him in that regard. The Office Note as toaction (if any)taken on Order I F ,rfu a a Office Note as toaction (if any)taken on Order

- - - _--

Order with Signatureinstance of persons who claim themselves to bethe Kamapa. Leaned counsel for the Statesubmits that .any and everybody cannot clainhinself to be the Karmapa. For those like uscoming from outside Sikkin, it is easy to.understand that the affairs of a Math or itsproperty cannot be made the subject matter of asuit by any and everybody simply by claiminghimself to be the proper and authorized Mahant ofthe Math, without producing sufficient support, atleast prima facie, for his case. The Karmapa is noless than the top Mahant for many a Monastery inSikkim.Apart from the State the other respondentshave not been served. It was submitted by theState that this is not a bona fide application andthe wit should be summarily dismissed with costsassessed at Rs.10,000/-. In my opinion theState's case is substantially right and thisapplication is in the nature of speculativelitigation, which attempts to get a snap order in athoroughly bad suit, if somehow that can be Off ice Note as toaction (if any)taken on Order fa

- .-::--:-----`-:.-::----=- ------tap"`.|k,#'