BHIMACHARYA BALACHARYA VARKHEDKAR Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this civil revision application, the petitioner challenges the order dated 14th October, 1991 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Pandharpur in Misc. Civil Appeal No.90 of 1991. That appeal was filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 1.7.1991 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, J.D., Pandharpur below Exhs. 30 and 65 (Common) in Reg. Civil Suit No.240/1988. The Reg. Civil Suit No.240/88 was filed by the petitioner, claiming several reliefs in relation to the management of Shri Vittal Rukmini Temple at Pandharpur. He also sought temporary injunction against the said management. The trial court, however, by its order dated 1.7.1991 dismissed his application for temporary injunction. In appeal, the Addl. District Judge confirmed that order and dismissed the appeal. Therefore in this Civil Revision Application both these orders of the courts below are challenged by the applicant.

(2.) THE petitioner, who appeared in person, submitted that the temporary injunction that was sought in the suit by the petitioner was that the resolution passed by the Managing Committee of Shri Vithal Rukhmini Temple, Pandharpur dated 23.6.1990 should not be implemented. In other words he was seeking an injunction, restraining the management committee of the temple from implementing the resolution dated 23.6.90. By that resolution the management committee of the temple decided to levy various fees ranging from Rs.111 to Rs.151 for various pujas of the deity. In the submission of the petitioner, the management committee was not entitled to levy these charges for various reasons. Firstly he submitted that the committee, which is presently functioning and which passed the resolution dated 23.6.1990, is not constituted committee in accordance with law and therefore, the said committee is not entitle to manage the affairs of the concerned temple and therefore, according to the applicant the resolution dated 23.6.90 is unauthorised and illegal. He also submitted that even if it is assumed that the committee is an authorised committee then also according to him under the provisions of the Act such charges cannot be levied or collected by the committee from the devotees for performing the pujas of the deity in temple. Therefore, in the submission of the petitioner/applicant as the charging of fee from the devotees for various Pujas is contrary to the provisions of the Act, the said Committee cannot levy these fees.

(3.) NOW it is to be seen here that the second appeals which are pending before this court, are arising out of the suits which were filed, challenging the validity of the provisions of the Act. Therefore, in my opinion, prima facie, it does not appear that the second appeals would stand abated because of the provisions of Section 5(1)(d) of the said Act. Therefore, in my opinion, the petitioner is not justified in saying that the appointment of the committee itself is illegal.