JUDGMENT A.P. Sahi, J.
1. The present petition has been preferred by three petitioners claiming themselves to be the Shebait Goswamis who have right of worship and mananagement in the affairs of ancient Hindu Dedicated to Lord Krishna popularly known as . "Thakur Behariji Maharaj" established several centuries ago. The right to perform Sewa, Puja and Bhog at the temple is state to be the exclusive right of the Goswami sect of which the petitioners are the members. Initially the aforesaid right was exercised by three branches of the same sect who were entitled to perform the sewa of Shringar Bhog, Raj Bhog and Shayan Bhog. The Branch of the community which performed the sewa of Shringar Bhog became extinct whereas the families performing Raj Bhdg and Shayam Bhog continue to exist even today. On the extinctioin of the branch of the family which was performing Shringar Bhog, the other two branches who I performing sewa of Raj Bhog and Shayan Bhog have taken performance of the sewa of Shringar Bhog as well by turn.
In the year 1938 differences arose between Goswamis of the aforesaid two branches of Raj Bhog and Shayan Bhog including the issue of distribution of the receipts of offering in the temple as result whereof a representative suit being Original Suit No. 156 of 1938 was filed for declaration of the rights of the paries on the issue raised therein In the said suit a decision was arrived at wherein the respective rights and claims of both the factions were settled defined and in order to further establish a smooth system for the management of the temple a scheme was drawn up and approved by the court which was part of the judgment and decree in the aforesaid suit and which scheme of management continues to govern the management of 'the'temple;' even today. The Scheme has been appended as Annexure~2 to the writ petition.
2. It appears that a committee was constituted under the aforesaid scheme against which a! complaint was made in the year 2002 and an application was moved before the Civil Judge, Junior Division Mathura for dismissing the committee and for appointment of a receiver. It is relevant to point out that under the said scheme the Munsif Magistrate, Mathura was conferred with certain powers under the aforesaid scheme to aid the management and perform certain I duties for managing the temple, which shall be discussed later on in this judgment. The Civil Judge, Junior Division, who now exercises the powers of the then Munsif Magistrate, proceeded to appoint a receiver. Later on, it is stated mat a committee was constituted pursuant to the election of the four members of both sects on 27.4.2003 and nomination of three members on 21.6.2003. A writ petition was filed in between and interim order was passed on 22.5.2003 whereby one of the members 'was restrained from participating in the committee which interim order was time bound till 28.7. 2003. In such a situation the committee could not function as; it, could not be constituted and a receiver was again appointed on 30th June 2003. The person who was appointed, as receiver was one of the nominated membeo nominated by the receiver on 2l.6.2003. Certain other orders were passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, which became subject matter of challenge before this Court and, writ petitions, which are referred to in paragraph 11 of the present writ petition.
3. The reference to the aforesaid orders is necessary inasmuch as the question which has been raised herein shall directly affect the fate of other writ petition. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 10.3.2005 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division on an application alleged to have been moved by Sri Dinesh Kumar Mani. A perusal of the said order indicate that the Civil Judge Junior Division to the conclusion, that since the committee of management.could not be constituted bn account of the on going dispute trie rival factions of Goswamis, nor is mere any hope I of formation of the committee in future as such in order to provide an effective management to manage the affairs of the temple the respondent no. 3 was being appointed as Secretaiy-curn-Manager, as per clause Adrninistration, who Shall discharge the function as referred to in the said order The said order has been challenged on merits complaining of being without authority. in law and in complete violation of the of the scheme.
The respondent no. 2 has put in appearance and filed a counter affidavit to which a rejoinder affidavit has also been filed and preliminary objection has been raised with regard to the maintainability of the writ |petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The matter was heard by me on the said preliminary issue and orders were reserved on 20.4.2005.
4. I have heard Sri S. V. Goswami and Sri Sanjai Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.K. Gupta who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2.
Sri Goswami has urged that in order to asceirtain :the . of the writ petition it would be appropriate to refer to the scheme, which has been framed by the civil court in Original Suit No. 156 of 1938. The scheme, according to him, has been framed under a valid decree passed by the civil , court and, therefore, the chatter of authority under the said scheme confers the Munsif Magistrate now designated as Civil Judge, Junior Division with powers, which can be described , as judicial in nature. For this he relied on the recital in the order as Well as also in the previous orders wherein the word "NyayaJaya" (court) has been used by the Civil Judge, Junior Division for the purpose of assuming the jurisdiction. Sri Goswami has taken the Court through the scheme and has pointed out that under clause 8 of the scheme a person aggrieved from the decision of the committee, in respect of the Electoral College shall have a right to appeal to the Munsif Magistrate. Thereafter, the powers of the Munsif Magistratej, to fix a date for election, in the event of the committee failing to do so, under clause 9 has been highlighted. Further under clause 12-C (ii) it has been provided that a candidate disputing the correctness of the electicn of the members will have a right to file an application to the Munsif Magistrate, Mathura. With regard to the constitution of the commitee of management, the: elected members will have the authority to recommend the name of three members to be nominated by the Munsif Magistrate. In absence of any such unanimous! recommendation, the Munsif Magistrate has been conferred with authority to nominate the members himself Upon nomination the Munsif Magistrate has been enjoined with the duty to "complete" the, committee within a month as per clause 13 of the scheme It has further been provided under Rule 20 that such members who who have been appointed or approved by the court shall not removed withouk previous permission of the Court. One of Clause which request most require deliberations is clause 21 which is quoted herein below:-
21. Saving It shall be open to the committiee or any member of it or any two persons interested in the temple or its faith to apply to the Munsif of Mathura for direction in regard to any matter not contained in this scheme or for any modification of the scheme which may be considered necessary or desirable in the interest of the deity or for the protection of its property income or 'reputation'.
5. On the ''basis of the aforesaid provisions and the facts staged herein above Sri Goswami contends that the Munsif Magistrate functioned as persona designata with powers conferred upon through a decree of civil court and as such when ever an application moved praying for passing orders for the affective management of the temple, the same can only be done for the purpose referred to in clause-21 and for such a limited purpose the proceeding, of the Original Suit No. 156 of 1938 will assume a revival of limited life. As a consequence thereof, since the proceeding will |be in effect an execution of the decree of the civil court through the Munsif Magistrate or the Civil Judge, Junior Division, he will be exercising judicial powers and hence such orders could be made the subject matter of scrutiny by this Court in exercise of an extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and also under the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He contends that a writ can be issued against the impugned order. The existence of the Munsif Magistrate as persona designata is because of the decree of the civil court and the personality of the Munsif Magistrate/Civil Judge, Junior Division cannot be split as the officer concerned would be acting by virtue of his occupying the office of Munsif Magistrate Civil Judge Junior Division and not otherwise. Sri Goswami has urged that a scheme can be framed for a private temple by the court as has been held by the Apex Court in the case reported in AIR 1970 SC 532. He has further placed reliance in AIR 1972 SC 1206 to demonstrate that it is not necessary for moving a separate application under section 92 for preparing a scheme of management and that the same can be done by moving an application in the original proceeding itself, as has been done in the present case. He has further referred to another decision of Calcutta High court reported in AIR 1937 Calcutta 382 to support the submissions referred to herein above. He has further urged that since the judgment of the civil court is a judgment in rem, therefore, the same binds on all concerned and any violation thereof can always be subject matter of scrutiny by the Munsif Magistrate without being any requirement of any separate proceedings being instituted in that regard.
6. Sri Goswami thereafter, straight away pointed out to the order passed by, this Court on 1 l.2.2005 in an application No. 40 of 2005 I which has been appended as Annexure-3 to the writ petition while deciding the question at the interim stage, it has been held the petition was maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The aforesaid order still subsists and as such is binding on this Court being a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction. If has further been pointed out by him that on an earlier occasion a similar matter had engaged the attention of this Court in Writ Petition No. 50145 of 2000 wherein a similar relief as prayed for in the present writ petition, was claimed. This Court dismissed the writ petition an the ground that the petitioner, had all alternative remedy under the Civil, Procedure Code. The matter was taken up to the Apex Court and the Apex granted leave and allowed the Special Leave Petition by, the following Order:-
Leave granted.
A writ petition was presented before the High Court Challenging the order made by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Mathura on Application No. 123 of 2000 which was offshoot of a scheme framed in Original Suit No. 156 of 1938. However, the High Cour dismissed the petition against that order observing that the appellant has an alternative remedy under, Code of Civil Procedure. Hence this appeal.
The order made by the learned Judge is not in exercise of powers of a Civil Court but as a named person or under the Scheme. In that view of the matter, the order, made by the High Court is set aside and the Writ Petition is remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
7. On the strengt of the aforesaid judgment Sri Goswami has urged that the objection raised by the other side that the writ petition is not maintainable deserves to be rejected.
Sri Goswami has further invited the attention of the Court to two other judgments reported in AIR 1955 Bombay 103 wherein it has been held that the Chief Judge of Small Causes Court functioned. like a tribunal while exercising his powers as a, person a under the provisions of Municipal Act and, therefore, such an order passed was amenable to the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Similarly, in the case R.K. Punnuu Raman v. Rajappa reported in AIR 1960 Madras 353 it has been held that the District Munsif Magistrate while inquiring into an election petition under section 19 of the while Village Panchayat Act though acts as persona tribunal and the orders passed by him could be designata is still a questioned under Article 226 and undei Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Sri Goswami has further, invited the attention of the judgments relied upon by this court in its in order dated 11.2.2005.namely, (1997) 5 SCC 76, (1994) scC 710, (2003) 6 SCC 6;2005 and(2004) 6 SCC 71.
8. Sri M.K. Gupta learned counsel for the respondents has urged that there is no powers conferred on the Munsif Magjstrate/Civil Judge, Junior Division to act judicially and after the scheme was framed discharge of judicial function by the court is ho longer required, the court has becorme functus officio.. The Munsif Magistrate/Civil Judge Junior Division is not exercising any power, which discribed to be the sovereign power of the State. The State has not (delegated any of its judicial power on the Munsif Magistrate/Civil Judge, Junior Division under the scheme, which is in essence a scheme for the management of a private body. Secondly, the power exercisable under the scheme is not conferred by any statute. The Munsif Magistrate is simply a custodian like any other private person, to discharge certain function under the scheme which is neither judicial nor quasi judicial in nature. The Munsif Magistrate/Civil judge, Junior Division does not assume any character of with judicial or quasi-judicial powers to adjudicate a lis under authority of law. To put it conversely Sri Gupta argued that if the Munsif Magistrate/Civil Judge Junior Division refuses to take any action under the scheme, no writ would be maintainable nor any such command could be issue to the said authority, under the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India. It is urged that in any view of the matter, Munsif Magistrate does not enjoy any such status and as such a petition would not be maintainable in respect of the oder presently impugned in the present writ petition. Sri Gupta has cited four decisions to support his submission, namely, AIR 1965 1593, paragraphs 7, 9, 10 and 25, AIR 1959 SC l07, paragraphs and 12, AIR 1959 SC 896 paragraph 1963 paragraph 15 and AIR 1966 SC 91 paragraphs 11 and 15.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the fact, which deserves to be noted, first is the power of Munsif Magistrate and the creation of its authority under the scheme. A perusal. of tile narrated herein above Would indicate that the Munsif Magistrate/Civil Judge Junior Division exercises limited functions, which are to be discharged in certain contingencies. It would be appropriate that in the instant case the issue be confined to the powers exercised by the authority while passing the orders on 10.3.2005. In order to appreciate the aforesaid facts a perusal of Clause 21 of the scheme quoted herein above would indicate that the Munsif Magistrate has been given the to entertain the application frorn the committee or any member of the committee or any person interested in the temple or its faith for direction in respect of any matter not provided for in the scheme or for modification of the scheme which may be necessary and desirable in the interest of the deity or for protection of me property or its an indication can be moved in reputation. This clearly indicates that the event there is any defect in carrying of the day today functioning in managing the affairs of the temple, for example, the protection of the property and of the temple While exercising such power the Munsif Magistrate, in my opinion, does not act as person designata in me sense that he does not exercise any judicial or quasi-judicial function to decide a lis. From a perusal of the order dated 10.3.2005, impugned in the present writ petition, it is evident that on account of persistent non functioning of the committee for one, reason or the other the Munsif Magistrate/Civil Judge, Junior Division has proceeded to make an interim arrangement for proper and efficient management of die affairs of the temple doing so, he has neither acted judicially or quasi judicially so as to decide any lis under any power conferred by the Statute. This sort of order by itself, in my opinion, would not be sufficient to directly invoke, the jurisdiction of this Court either under Article 226 or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The two decisions relied upon by Sri Goswarni reported in AIR 1955 Bombay 103 and AIR 1969 Madras 353 referred to herein above do not apply in the present controversy inasmuch as they were cases dealing with the authority who was persona designata enjoined with the duty to act like a tribunal under a particular statute. This is not the case here and as such the aforesaid decisions have no application on the facts of this case. The other decisions which have been relied upon all arose out of the civil suit and were not arising out of any orders or actions taken by an authority who was acting as persona designata. It is something different that after the parties contest on the original side in any suit, then such an order would definitely be amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court. The case relied upon by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 11.2.2005, therefore, also do not come to the aid of the petitioner In the case reported in (1997) 5 SCC 76, the orders emanated in proceeding before the Sub Divisional Officer who had passed an order as an appellate authority under the provisions of West Bengal Restoration of Alienated Land Act, 1973. While adjudicating the validity of the said order the Apex Court held that the High court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the exercise jf its power as superintendence is not confined to administration as Such power includes the power of judicial review. The said case therefore also not an authority of the facts as are involved in the present case inasmuch as the Munsif Magistrate/Civil Judge Junior Division has not exercised any such statutory powers which may invite the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Similarly, in the case reported in (1999) 4 SCC 710 it has been held that the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can enter into the merits to find out the justification in passing of an order by the Debt Recoyery tribunal constituted under 1993 Act The power to grant ex parte injunction by the tribunal was held to be available to the Debt Recovery Tribunal as well. It was further held that such an interim order could be interfered with, if found unjustified, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India The recent decision in the case of Surya Deo Rai Versos Ram Champa Kai reported in (2003) 6 SCC 675 has explained in detail and has further pointed out the distinction in the aforesaid two Articles. Broadh stated the Apex Court held the writ, of a certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution is issued for correcting the gross errors of jurisdiction while supervisory, jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is exercised for keeping the sub ordinate court within the bounds of their jurisdiction. The power exercisable is thus, over an authority of tribunal or a court of subordinate or inferior jurisdiction. As indicated herein above, the Munsif Magistrate/Civil Judge Division is neither acting as tribunal or authority obliged to act judicially or quasi judicially and as such does not fall within the sweep of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is to be remembered that Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not a limitless power available to exercised for removing hardship by particular decision. Sri Goswami has urged that the said decision goes a step further to hold that Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be available for issuing a certiorari and Article 227 of the Constitution of India would be available to issue a writ in proceedings arising out of an order by: a subordinate court even if the lis is between the private parties. As pointed out above, the 'present proceeding have not arisen out of a lis instituted under any statutory law before the competent authority or Court and as such the order impugned dated 10.3.2005 is not an order of that nature and as such the said authority of Surya Deo Rai (supra) would not be attracted to decide the issue in question. The last decision referred to in the order of the learned Single Judge dated 11.2.2005 reported in (2004),6 SCC 71 is also not applicable on the question presently involved in the writ petition. The said decision has reiterated the ratio in the case of Surya Deo Rai and as such also is not applicable in the present controversy.
9. Coming to the orders dated 11.2.2005 in Writ Application No 40 of 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge holding that the writ petition would be maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the judgment of the Apex Court dated 20.7.2001 in such a matter which has been appended as Annexure-3 to the writ petition it is to be noted that the aforesaid orders were passed in the matters arising out with regard to the management of the same, temple and at the instance of one or the other rival factions including the petitioners. The judgment of the Apex Court dated 20.7.2001 quoted herein above does not decide the question as to the maintainability of the petition against the orders passed by the Munsif Magistrate/Civil Judge, Junior Division in exercise of its powers under the scheme. This issue does not appear to have been debate at all and the special leave petition was allowed simply on the ground that the High Court was| not correct in relegating the petitioner thereunder in view of alternative remedy available under the C.P.C. inasmuch as the order passed by the Munsif Magistrate/Civil Judge. Junior Division was no in exercise of powers by a civil court but as a named person: or authority under the scheme. The learned Single Judge in her order dated 11.2.2005 has further specifically held that the writ would be maintaiable under Article 227 of the Constitution pf India and has passed! the order after discussing the Supreme Court judgments referred to herein above
10. For the reasons recorded by me earlier, I am of the view that a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would be maintainable in the nature of the relief claimed in the present writ petition and as such with all humility I respectfully disagree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in her order dated 11.2.2005.
In view of the fact that the Apex Court, in my opinion has not returned any decision on the issue raised before me and has directed the High Court decide the writ petition it would be appropriate that this matter is resolved by reference to a larger bench The same is also necessary inasmuch as, judicial discipline requires that once me learned Single Judge of this Court Icing a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction has already held, by way of an interim judgment, that writ : is maintainable, it would not be appropriate for me to decide the case . otherwise without referring the matter to a larger bench. Reference of this Court .be had to the case of Rana Pratap Singh Versus State of U.P. reported in 1995 ACJ 200 (Full Bench) Since I have been unable to persuade myself with the view already taken by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the order dated 11 2.2005 with which most respectfully disagree for the reasons set out herein above, I therefore would request the Hon'ble the Chief justice to refer the issues framed herein after for being decided by a larger bench in view of the provisions of Chapter V Rule 2(ix) (b) read with Rule 6 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952
11. The following are the issues framed to be referred to a larger bench for an authoritative pronouncement under the Rules of the Court:-
1. Whether the Munsif Magistrate/Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mathura while discharging his functions under the scheme framed by the court, appended as Annexure-2 to the writ petition acts as persona designata, so as to make the orders passed by him in discharge of such functions amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India?
2. Whether the High Court in exercise of its super sory Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, of India, can issue directions or pass orders in respect of the functioning of Munsif Magistrate/Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mathura under the scheme framed for providing management of the temple known as Thakur Bankey Behariji Maharaj, Vrindaban, Mathura?
Let the papers be placed! before Hon'ble the Chief Justice with a request to pass appropriate orders as may be desirable under the circumstances of this case.