In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has expressed deep concerns over the prolonged involvement of practising advocates in the management of ancient temples in Mathura, questioning the suitability of such appointments and calling for immediate reforms. The court emphasized that the administration of these revered temples should not be entangled in lengthy legal battles dominated by Receivers who are more interested in maintaining their control rather than resolving the disputes. This judgment, delivered by Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, sets a precedent aimed at protecting the sanctity and proper management of temples, ensuring they are managed by those who have the requisite devotion and knowledge of religious practices.
Background of the Case:
The Allahabad High Court, in its judgment dated August 27, 2024, addressed the ongoing issues surrounding the appointment of Receivers in the management of several ancient temples in Mathura. The case titled “Devendra Kumar Sharma & Anr. v. Ruchi Tiwari,” under Contempt Application (Civil) No. 4429 of 2023, involved applicants Devendra Kumar Sharma and another against Ruchi Tiwari, ACJ (Senior Division). The counsel for the applicants were Ajeet Singh and Kamlesh Kumar, while the opposite party was represented by Chandan Sharma.
The matter arose from an earlier writ court order on November 23, 2021, which set aside the appointment of an advocate as a Receiver in Original Suit No. 332 of 1999, involving the Sri Giriraj Temple in Govardhan, Mathura. The writ court directed that the application for appointing a Receiver should be reconsidered on its merits. However, instead of appointing a single Receiver connected to the temple, the lower court appointed a Seven Member Committee of Receivers, including three advocates, on March 28, 2023. This decision was challenged by the applicants, who argued that the committee’s appointment was contrary to the principles laid down in legal precedents.
Legal Issues Involved:
1. Appointment of Receivers: The central legal issue revolved around the appointment of Receivers under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court examined whether appointing a committee of advocates as Receivers was just and convenient, as required by law, especially when such appointments appeared to prolong litigation unnecessarily.
2. Role of Advocates as Receivers: The court criticized the increasing trend of appointing practising advocates as Receivers, especially in temple management cases, where specialized skills and dedication towards religious duties are required. The court observed that advocates, due to their professional commitments, might not be best suited for the role, which often demands full-time attention and expertise in religious management.
3. Prolongation of Litigation: The court noted that the management of temple affairs through Receivers often leads to prolonged litigation, with no significant efforts made to resolve the disputes expeditiously. The case highlighted the need for judicial discretion to be exercised with caution, avoiding routine appointments of Receivers that could further entangle the management of temples in legal disputes.
Decision of the Court:
The judgment, delivered by Hon’ble Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, set aside the lower court’s order dated March 28, 2023, appointing a Seven Member Committee of Receivers. The High Court emphasized the need to expedite the resolution of disputes involving temple management and discouraged the practice of appointing advocates as Receivers. The court stated, “Time has come when all these temples should be freed from the clutches of practising advocates of Mathura Court.”
The court made several critical observations:
– On the Role of Receivers: “The object of appointing a Receiver is to protect, preserve, and manage the property during the pendency of a suit. The appointment of a Receiver is an act of the Court and made in the interest of justice.”
– On the Prolongation of Litigation: “Prolonging the litigation is only creating further disputes in the temples and leading to indirect involvement of practising advocates and district administration in the temples, which is not in the interest of the people having faith in Hindu religion.”
– On Management by Religious Persons: The court highlighted that the management of temples should ideally be handled by individuals connected with the temple’s religious aspects and familiar with the Vedas and Shastras, rather than by advocates or administrative officials.
The court directed the District Judge, Mathura, to take personal responsibility in ensuring the prompt resolution of civil disputes involving temple management and trusts. The case was remanded to the lower court with instructions to reconsider the application for appointment of a Receiver in accordance with the earlier directions of the writ court dated November 23, 2021, within two weeks.
Additionally, the court underscored that future appointments of Receivers should avoid involving practising advocates and should focus on appointing individuals with a genuine connection to the religious management of the temples.
Case Details:
– Case Title: Devendra Kumar Sharma & Anr. v. Ruchi Tiwari
– Case Number: Contempt Application (Civil) No. 4429 of 2023
– Bench: Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
– Counsel for Applicants: Ajeet Singh, Kamlesh Kumar
– Counsel for Opposite Party: Chandan Sharma
– Parties Involved: Devendra Kumar Sharma and another (Applicants), Ruchi Tiwari, ACJ (Senior Division) (Opposite Party)
