Summary
In a PIL about the management of the Chitai Golu Devta Temple in Almora, the District Magistrate constituted an independent management committee for its non-religious affairs. The Uttarakhand High Court directed the committee to continue. It declined to decide disputed shebait rights and the alleged misuse of funds on affidavits, leaving claimants to file civil suits. A member of the family claiming shebaitship appealed, complaining that the PIL was decided without hearing her impleadment application. The Court held that the temple may be deemed a public temple. The State may regulate its secular, non-religious affairs and ensure donations are not misused, while the family continues to perform worship. The inter se disputes among family branches over shebaitship must be settled by civil suit, so her interest was protected. The appeals were dismissed.
Issues
- Whether the State could constitute an independent committee to manage the non-religious affairs of a temple visited by large numbers of devotees and situated on Government land, pending civil adjudication of disputed shebait rights.
- Whether the High Court's order was vitiated by disposing of the PIL without deciding the appellant's impleadment application.
Provisions considered
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaDisputed shebait rights, title to land and alleged misuse of funds could not be decided on affidavits in a PIL. The High Court rightly left them to civil suits while letting the management committee continue. (¶¶ 22, 31, 39, 46)
Held
- Applying the tests in Goswami Shri Mahalaxmi Vahuji, the temple may be deemed a public temple. It is renowned and visited by thousands of devotees over many years, and it and the surrounding land belong to the State. Appointing an independent managing committee for it is a secular matter that the State may regulate. (¶¶ 34, 35)
- The State may control the non-religious affairs of a temple on Government land and ensure that public donations are not misappropriated or wasted. Here the committee managed only secular affairs, and the family and priests continued to perform worship according to their rites. (¶¶ 25, 32, 38)
- Where worship has been conducted for generations and there are many branches of a family, inter se disputes over the founder's descendants' right to manage must be settled by a civil suit. The High Court rightly left all claimants, including the appellant, free to sue, which protected her interest. Marthanda Varma and Guruvayoor Devaswom were distinguishable. (¶¶ 39, 42, 43, 44, 45)
- Nobody drew the High Court's attention to the pending impleadment application. The appellant could have appeared and made submissions even without being added as a party, and other family members in the same Mandir Samiti were heard. The order was not vitiated. (¶ 46)
Result
Appeals dismissed, upholding the High Court's direction that the independent management committee continue and leaving shebait and other claims to civil suits.