Apex Court Stays Bombay HC's Order For Registration Of FIR For Mismanagement Of Tulja Bhawani Temple In PIL By Hindu Janjagruti Samiti

The Bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice R Mahadevan ordered, “Issue notice, returnable in four weeks. Formal notice need not be issued to the respondent No.1, who is represented by Mr. Vishnu Shankar Jain, learned AOR…In the meantime, the operation of the impugned order dated 09.05.2024 is stayed.”

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Senior Advocate Gourav Agrwal appeared for the State of Maharashtra whereas Senior Advocate Sanjeev Deshpande and AOR Vishnu Shankar Jain appeared for the Hindu Janjagruti Samiti.

A Special Leave Petition was filed challenging an order passed by the Bombay High Court directing the registration of an FIR for the allegations of fraud and misappropriation in the management of the temple.

The High Court had passed an order in a Public Interest Litigation initiated by a public-spirited charitable trust i.e. Hindu Janjagruti Samiti stated to be interested in the upkeep and maintenance of the public revered temple which is visited by devotees from across Maharashtra, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Goa states.

Tushar Mehta submitted that the practice of auctioning the throne donation box in the Tuljabhawani Temple was stopped long back in 2010, on orders of the Joint Charity Commissioner, Latur. Moreover, there were multiple inquiry reports on the same subject matter. It was further submitted that during the relevant period 1999 to 2009, various Government Officers from SDM to Collector level were posted in their Ex-Officio capacity, in the Temple Trust Board. Therefore, he said that the direction given by the High Court to register an FIR based on the differing reports will have far-reaching implications for many who have long superannuated and were no longer connected with the Government.

Relying on the landmark judgment in Sakiri Vasu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2008), he also submitted that the complainant could have taken recourse to the provisions of Section 156 of the CrPC instead of invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court.

Senior Advocate Gaurav Aggarwal appeared for the ex-officio members of the Trust of the Tuljabhawani Temple and was directly impacted by the High Court’s judgment.

The Tuljabhawani Temple Trust was registered with the office of the Assistant Charity Commissioner in the year 1962. There were no bye-laws or rules and regulations for its management. It was averred before the High Court by the Samiti that by way of a resolution in 1984, the trustees had resolved to undertake an auction of the donation box. By another resolution in 1991, the practice was abandoned on the grounds that it was not in the interest of the temple trust. It was alleged before the High Court that without there being any reason or occasion this last decision not to auction the donation box was again reversed in a few months and the practice of undertaking auctions resumed and during this period from 1991 to 2009 there was rampant embezzlement in respect of the offerings to the deity. It was submitted that despite huge offerings of gold and silver ornaments through the donation box only a few were accounted for.

Samiti had further added that in the year 2009 the then Collector Osmanabad (Dharashiv) realised that such embezzlement was taking place. It alleged that a similar conclusion was drawn even by the office of the Joint Charity Commissioner. The matter was taken to the State Government which entrusted the enquiry to the criminal investigation department.

The High Court, while directing a threadbare investigation into the allegations, had held, “Bearing in mind the fact that it is a matter of offerings to the deity received in the donation box, when everyone, even the latest report impugned in the petition dated 24.01.2020 is unanimous that the practice of auctioning the donation box should not have been resorted to and even the Joint Charity Commissioner had directed the practice to be stopped by the order dated 20.04.2010, for the reasons recorded therein, in our considered view, the issue needs to be taken to the logical end, even if it requires registration of a crime. We cannot countenance the stand being taken by the State Government prejudging the issue. If at all the crime is registered and investigated and if the investigating machinery/officer is unable to collect the material, obviously, he will not be in a position to substantiate the allegations and may not even file a charge-sheet. However, the action cannot be preempted.”

Accordingly, the Supreme Court stayed the impugned order and issued notice in the matter.

Cause Title: The State Of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Hindu Janjagruti Samiti & Anr.

Appearances:

Petitioners: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Senior Advocate Gourav Agrwal, AORs Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, Advocates Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Aditya Krishna, Preet S Phanse, Adarsh Dubey, Nikita Vilasrao Borde-patil, Sagar N. Pahune Patil and Yash Prashant Sonavane.

Respondents: Senior Advocate Sanjeev Deshpande and AOR Vishnu Shankar Jain.

Click here to read/download the Order