The legal case delves into the intricate analysis by the court regarding the recovery of misappropriated Temple funds. The court’s thorough examination of the situation provides crucial insights into the legal aspects surrounding the case.
Facts
- Petitioner invoking jurisdiction under Article 129 of the Constitution of India for contempt of court against respondents.
- Issue involves Sri Sri Maa Kamakhya Devalaya with State of Assam as a party.
- Allegations against respondent nos. 1 to 5 for breaches of court directions and not paying surplus cash belonging to the Deity.
- Grievance regarding non-handover of Temple’s books of accounts to petitioner.
- Contempt petitions issued initially only to respondent no. 5, Deputy Commissioner.
- Petitioner is elected Dolois representing Bordeuri Samaj of Kamakhya Devalaya with historical recognition.
- Formation of illegal Debutter Board in 1998 by respondent nos. 1 to 4 usurping powers traditionally held by Dolois.
- Breach alleged in contempt petitions is of direction in paragraph 73 of Court’s July 2015 Judgment.
- Direction given for Debutter Board to vacate Temple premises within four weeks and handover possession.
- Grievances include non-handover of immovable and movable Temple properties to Bordeuri Samaj.
Also Read: Admission Deadline Adherence in Medical Courses
Arguments
- Dr. Rajiv Dhavan, Senior Counsel for the petitioner, emphasized the importance of recovering the misappropriated money belonging to the Temple.
- The focus of the contempt petitions is on the recovery of the funds from respondent nos. 1 to 4.
Also Read: From Nominee to Disqualified: Supreme Court Scrutinizes Age Evidence, Declares Election Invalid
Analysis
- The State Government filed an affidavit outlining steps to implement the Judgment dated 7 July 2015.
- A report by the Additional Director General of Police, CID, Assam revealed misappropriation of funds by the Debutter Board.
- An order directed lodging a criminal case and conducting a proper investigation within three months.
- The report highlighted withdrawals made in violation of court orders, indicating misappropriation.
- The office bearers did not cooperate with the inquiry officer, raising suspicions of concealment of vital information.
- It was noted that no specific amount was directed to be paid by respondents 1 to 4 in the judgment.
- The lodging of a criminal case was recommended for a thorough investigation to uncover financial trails and misappropriations.
- Respondents 1 to 4 were seen as obliged to pay the misappropriated sum in accordance with the judgment’s directives.
- The respondents’ attempt to limit the judgment’s scope to the main Kamakhya Temple was contested as a breach of the directions.
- Counsels presented arguments regarding the absence of a specific payment directive in the judgment dated 7 July 2015.
- The importance of exercising contempt powers with caution in light of handed-over immovable properties was highlighted.
- Careful consideration was given to the arguments presented by the respondents and their interpretation of the judgment’s directions.
- Respondents did not object to the report, which does not imply acceptance of liability.
- No adjudication was made to determine the extent of liability for the amount in question.
- Insufficient grounds for action under Article 129 of the Constitution read with the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
- Contempt jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, not applicable in this case.
- Petitioner can pursue recovery of the money mentioned in the report through appropriate legal proceedings.
- Observations in the report are not considered as conclusive findings.
- Parties were not given the opportunity to file objections to the report based on the order dated January 31, 2020.
Decision
- The premises and other properties of Sri Sri Maa Kamakhya Temple will be placed back in possession of the Bordeories Samaj through the last elected Dolois.
- The handover must be done against receipts which will be retained in the Office of Deputy Commissioner, Gauhati.
- Contempt petitions have been disposed of as per the above terms.
Case Title: THE BORDEURI SAMAJ OF SRI SRI MAA KAMAKHYA Vs. RIJU PRASAD SARMA (2021 INSC 897)
Case Number: CONMT.PET.(C) No.-000853-000855 / 2015
