MAHENDRA KANTILAL THAKAR Vs. VISHNUPRASAD K THAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS group of four Appeals preferred under clause 15 of the Letters Patent arise from the judgment and order dated 19th september, 2006 passed by the learned single Judge in above Special Civil application No. 16200/2004.

(2.) THE subject matter of dispute in this group of Appeals is the right to appointment as Bhattji Pujari in the Ambaji Temple situated at Ambaji, Taluka Danta, District banaskantha. The Ambaji Temple (hereinafter referred to as, "the Temple")was, for centuries, the property of the erstwhile State of Danta. The then Ruler of danta State used to appoint Saraswat audichya Brahmins of Siddhpur as Bhattji pujari to perform Puja at the Temple. Since independence and on ceding of the State of danta in the Union of India, the Temple became of the ownership of the then State of Bombay. On 17th March, 1960, the State of Bombay framed a scheme for administration of the Temple. Under the said scheme, the Audichya Brahmins of siddhpur who possessed the qualification mentioned in the said scheme like knowledge of reciting vedas, mantras, etc. were made eligible for appointment as bhattji Pujari. Under the said scheme, three of the appellants in the present Appeals and predecessor of one of the appellants, kaushk Kanaiyalal Thakar and the predecessor of Shri Vishnuprasad Thakar [hereinafter referred to as, "the writ petitioner"], the writ petitioner in the above special Civil Application No. 16200/2004, were appointed to be the Bhattji Pujari. Each of the five Pujaris had to take turn of one year of performing Puja. Under the said scheme, the Bhattji Pujaris were entitled to, amongst other things, 25% of the donation received by the Temple. The said scheme was challenged by the appellants/their predecessors before the Court of learned civil Judge, Palanpur in Civil Suit No. 73/ 1961. In the said suit, one Shri Maharajshri prathisinhj, Diwan of the then State of danta made affidait. It was stated that the king of the Danta State employed members of the family of one Ranchhodji shivshankar, Audichya Sahastra Brahmin of Sidhpur as Pujari and Bhattji of Ambaji mata Temple for a period of four years in turn. The members of the said family were well versed with the pooja, archna, shangar and religious ceremonies of Mataji. They were appointed by virtue of hereditary right. For around 100 years, except the members of the said family, no other person was appointed as Bhattji Pujari. The said suit was settled out of the Court. On 18th february, 1969, the suit was disposed of in terms of the consent terms. According to the consent terms, the plaintiffs of the said suit, the present appellants, were continued us Bhattji Pujaris in rotation for a period of 20 years. It may be noted that the aforesaid scheme dated I7th March, 1960 was also challenged by the erstwhile Maharaja of danta before this Court in a writ petition. In view of the interim order made in the writ petition, the above referred consent terms were not implemented. After the disposal of the writ petition in the year 1974, the said consent terms became effective and remained operative for next 20 years i. e. until 1994. In the year 1994, the Collector proposed that one Kanaiyalal Thakar, the father of one of the appellant Kaushik kanaiyalal, be continued as Bhattji Pujari after expiry of his term as Bhattji Pujari on 18th May. 1994. Pursuant to the said proposal, by order dated 16th June, 1994, the said Kanaiyalal Thakar was appointed as Bhattji Pujari for the period from 16th june, 1994 to 15th June, 1995. On 4th march. 1995 the Government passed a resolution to appoint five persons as Bhattji pujari in rotation including one Krashnalal vitthalji Thakar, the father of the writ petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, the aforesaid kanaiyalal Thakar preferred Special Civil application No. 4441/1995 and claimed right to appointment as Bhattji Pujari by heredity. Pending the said petition, the State government, by Resolution dated 13th august, 1998, appointed the aforesaid krashnalal Thakar as Bhattji Pujari for a period of one year commencing from 13th august, 1998 to 12th August, 1999. The said appointment was cancelled by subsequent Resolution dated 20th August, 1998. Feeling aggrieved, the said Krashnalal thakar preferred Special Civil Application no. 6827/1998 before this Court. Pending the said petition, under interim order made by this Court (Coram: M. S. Parikh, J.), three of the other claimants were permitted to function as Bhattji Pujari by rotation except the above mentioned Krashnalal Thakar and : Kanaiyalal Thakar. The aforesaid Special civil Applications No. 4441/1995 and 6827/ 1998 came to be decided on 19th June, 2002 by the learned Single Judge (Coram: jayant Patel, J. ). The learned Single Judge held that the aforesaid Krashnalal had a right to act as Bhattji Pujari for a period of one year pursuant to his appointment made on 13th August, 1998. As by then the said krashnalal Thakar had passed away, his son, the writ petitioner, was permitted to complete one year of puja by allowing him to act as Bhattji Pujari for remaining 357 days. In compliance with the said direction, by Government Resolution dated 25th June, 2002 the writ petitioner was appointed as bhattji Pujari for 357 days. By Government resolution dated 16th June, 2003, until rules for appointment of Bhattji Pujari were made, by interim arrangement, three of the appellants before us and the aforesaid kanaiyalal Thaker were appointed as bhattji Pujari. The State Government has, by Resolution dated 17th September, 2004, modified the scheme especially clause 39 of i the scheme. The State Government decided that four appellants be appointed as Bhattji pujari in rotation for a period of one year. It is this modification of clause 39 and the consequent orders made on 17th September, 2004 which were subject matter of challenge before the learned Single Judge in the above Special Civil Application.

(3.) THE learned Single Judge was pleased to hold that the State Government had no reason to modify clause 39 of the scheme. The learned Single Judge accordingly set-aside the impugned government Resolution dated 17th september, 2004. The State Government was directed to take appropriate steps for appointment of new Bhattji Pujari on the basis of clause 39 of the scheme of 1960 by providing necessary qualifications in addition to those already prescribed under the said clause. Therefore, the present appeals.