Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19041 of 2019 Petitioner :- Maya Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Singh,Ashok Mehta (Senior Advocate),Ramesh Prasad Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhanu Prakash Verma
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Heard Sri Ashok Mehta assisted by Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 5 and Sri B.P. Verma, Advocate, who has moved an impleadment application to implead Ras Bihari Goswami and another.
Considering that we are disposing off this petition today itself, we do not consider it necessary to pass any order on the impleadment application, therefore, the impleadment application shall stand disposed off in terms of this order.
A perusal of the record would reveal that petitioner Maya Devi had instituted original suit no.271 of 2018 in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Chhata, Mathura in respect of right relating to Pooja Archna of Shri Ladliji Maharaj Mandir, Barsana, Chhata, Mathura. During the pendency of the suit, the district administration passed certain orders dealing with administration of the temple. The orders were challenged by one of the affected parties through Writ C No.8947 of 2019, which was disposed off by order dated 25th March, 2019, which is there at page 117-118 of the paper book. The Division Bench of this Court while disposing of the said petition took the view that the orders passed by the district administration shall be kept in abeyance and shall abide the orders passed by the civil court in suit no.271 of 2018.
From the record it further appears that on 25th April, 2019, the District Magistrate, Mathura issued an office order directing the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mathura to ensure compliance of the order dated 25th March, 2019, passed in Writ C No.8947 of 2019.
In between, on 20th April, 2019, application 6-C filed in suit no.271 of 2018 for grant of injunction to restrain the other party from interfering in the right of the petitioner to do Pooja and Archana in the said temple was rejected.
In this petition, the petitioner, whose application 6-C has been rejected in suit no.271 of 2018, has prayed for direction upon the State-respondents to pay appropriate compensation for causing mental agony which she has suffered on account of deprivation of her right to do Pooja and Archana from 4th November to 12th November, 2018 and from the afternoon of 27th April, 2019 till 30th April, 2019, by claiming that she has been un- authorizedly dispossessed from her office. In the alternative, the petitioner has prayed for a direction commanding the private respondents, who is the Committee of Management of the trust, to pay to the petitioner cash offering that was received from 4th November, 2018 to 12th November, 2018 and from afternoon of 27th April, 2019 till 30th April, 2019.
In so far as first prayer of the petitioner is concerned, which is against the respondent-authorities, suffice it to say that consequent to the stay order passed by this Court on 25th March, 2019, the state-respondents would have to abide the decision of the civil court. Otherwise also, from the order dated 25th April, 2019, which is at page 143-144 of the paper book, it appears that the District Magistrate, Mathura has already issued direction to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mathura to ensure compliance of the order of the writ court. In case, the State-respondents are still violating the orders passed by the writ Court, then it is open to the petitioner to take recourse to remedy provided in contempt jurisdiction.
In so far as the second prayer of the petitioner is concerned, which is in respect of sharing of cash offerings made at Ladliji Maharaj Mandir, suffice it to say that consequent to rejection of application 6-C filed by the petitioner in suit no.271 of 2018, that relief cannot be independently considered in writ jurisdiction because the appropriate course for the petitioner is to pursue the suit or to take recourse to remedy of an appeal against rejection of application 6-C.
In view of the above, the prayers sought in this petition cannot be accepted in writ jurisdiction.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of the court to page 169 of the paper book (Annexure-22), which discloses that some complaint has been made by the petitioner at the complaint portal.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complaint of the petitioner may be addressed because the petitioner has complained that she has been illegally ousted on 27th April, 2019.
Be that as it may, it is always open to the petitioner to pursue her complaint but it would not be appropriate for us to make any observation on the merits of the right claimed by the petitioner as that is subjudice in the civil proceeding.
With the aforesaid observation, this petition is disposed off. Order Date :- 29.5.2019.
Rks.