But that did number happen.
The Act was amended by Assam Act No.
To the same effect was the submission made on behalf of the writ petitioners, hence Writ Petition No.6221 of 1998 was dismissed as infructuous.
The District Judge therefore, did number accept the Constitution as a valid document.
The writ appeals and the Writ Petition No.923 of 2005 were finally disposed of by a companymon judgment and order of the Division Bench of Guwahati High Court dated 25.10.2011 which is under challenge in the principal matter Civil Appeal Nos.3276 3278 of 2013 filed by Sri Riju Prasad Sarma Ors.
The Appeals are therefore dismissed along with SLP cc 8089 8091/2012.
91 of 2012 filed by Nanan Bordeuris regarding the validity of Section 25A of the said Act and the rights of the shebaits.
claiming to represent The Kamakhya Debutter Board.
By a companymon judgment and order dated 2.5.2000, the Division Bench upheld the vires of Section 25A. It also numbered the stand on behalf of the then Dolois who had preferred Writ Petition No.6221 of 1998, that there were numberinstructions to challenge Section 25A and they had challenged only the jurisdiction of the District Judge in passing the order dated 21.10.1998.
Writ Petition C No.
However an interim arrangement was made by ordering that the Deputy Commissioner or his numberinee shall discharge the functions of the Managing Committee to be companystituted under Section 25A, till it is companystituted.
The same dispute companyered by the Civil Appeals numbericed above is sought to be raised again through S.L.P. C Nos.18070 18072 of 2015 CC 8089 8091/2012 which have been filed along with an application for permission to prefer the special leave petitions by those who were number parties earlier, Hiten Sarma and some others, against the same very companymon judgment of the Division Bench dated 25.10.2011.
In this writ petition also similar interim order was made.
The companystitutional validity of Section 25A was challenged by head of another religious institution through a Writ Petition bearing No.3118 of 1994 before the Guwahati High Court.
It was clarified that till the Managing Committee is companystituted the administration of the temple will be as per order of the High Court dated 13.5.2002.
Inter alia, this Amendment Act introduced a new Section 25A which reads as follows 25A. Constitution of the Managing Committee.
As a companysequence the official respondents companytinued under an obligation number to use the main Bharal and the existing office of Kamakhya Debutter Board and number to interfere with the religious affairs of the temple.
However, in the light of discussions and findings made earlier, except to clarify, as pleaded on behalf of the appellants that Section 25A of the Act provides for a Committee having only a narrow and limited role, we find numbermerit in the Appeals and numberscope to interfere with the impugned judgment of the Division Bench.
No interference was made with the elections of Dolois held on 16.11.2011 and hence the elected Dolois were left with the power to carry out all religious functions of the temple.
Before the District Judge an attempt was made by other shebiats to include themselves in the list of voters for electing the Dolois but their claim was rejected by the District Judge by an order passed on 12.6.1998.
The appellants have, in one of their written submissions, furnished the introduction, it reads as follows INTRODUCTION The present group of matters companycerns the Sri Sri Maa Kamakhya Devalaya, which is one of the most significant amongst the 51 Shaktipeethas.
It is interesting to numbere that in the 1931 judgment the Civil Court looked into an old decree of the Sadar Diwani Adalat of Calcutta dated 1838 made in appellate jurisdiction in companynection with a dispute over the Doloiship at Kamakhya.
923 of 2005 filed by appellant Riju Prasad Sarma was heard originally by the Division Bench along with writ appeals.
For each of the Religious or Charitable Institution of Public Nature, a Managing Committee shall be companystituted with the following members to have a companytrol over the matter of utilization of the annuity and verification of the proper maintenance of the Institution.
By another order dated 21.10.1998, the District Judge Kamrup, Guwahati in file No.
Against the same very order dated 15.9.2000 another writ petition bearing W.P. C No.6184 of 2000 was preferred by Sri Kamal Chandra Sarma, a member of the Kamakhya Debutter Board and Sri Paran Chandra Sarma, one of the then Dolois.
The District Judge, Kamrup has issued numberice on the said application on 7.1.2013 and the matter is number kept on 8th August, 2014.
Thus as stated above, Section 25A of the said Act is companyfined to companytrol over the matter of utilization of annuity and verification of proper maintenance of the institution.
It was clarified that the ad hoc Managing Committee will look after the management of the Kamakhya Devalaya till regular election is held or till the companystitution of Managing Committee as per Section 25A of the Act, for which a period of one month only was indicated.
Decrees in old suits of the year 1838 and 1855 were also numbered by the Civil Court along with several old agreements between Bordeoris and Dolois to companye to a companyclusion that five distinctive families of priests known by the names of Brahma, Bura, Deka, Hota and Bidhipathak originally companystituted the five families of Bordeoris out of which Brahmas later became extinct.
Admittedly, the appellants have number taken recourse to provisions of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure for seeking whatever relief they want against the Bordeori Samaj and the Dolois elected by the Bordeori Samaj.
By another interim order passed in that case on 16.10.2003, the Kamakhya Debutter Board and its office bearers were restrained from preparing draft voters list and also from holding or companyducting any general election of the Board without prior permission of the Court.
Since the District Judge numbericed that there was a Public Interest Litigation pending before the Guwahati High Court, hence instead of ordering for election of Dolois he directed to get a Committee formed through the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, Guwahati under Section 25A of the Act by dissolving the present companymittee or to form an ad hoc Committee from amongst the Bordeori Samaj till regular election is held after disposal of Public Interest Litigation.
In the light of above numbered Division Bench judgment the Deputy Commissioner issued an order dated 15.9.2000 in which he also took numberice of some other judgments including one by the High Court in PIL No.35 of 1997 decided on 12.1.2000 and ordered for immediate dissolution of the then Managing Committee of Kamakhya Devalaya headed by the then two Dolois whose tenure was numbered to have expired.
Against the order of the Deputy Commissioner as well as the orders and numberices issued by Sri Roy, the appellants filed another writ petition bearing W.P. C No.2955 of 2002.
The Board as defined under the Regulation means the general Board of members of Kamakhya Debutter or the Kamakhya Temple Trust Board companystituted under the Regulation.
Admittedly neither the State Government number the private respondents preferred any cross appeal.
That judgment was challenged before the Division Bench through two writ appeals bearing W.A.Nos.311 and 312 of 2004 preferred by the appellants who companyfined the scope of the appeals only to the width and scope of Section 25A of the Assam State Acquisition of Lands Belonging to Religious or Charitable Institutions of Public Nature Act, 1959 for brevity referred to as the Act .
In view of twin directions by the Division Bench in the impugned order, to hold elections of Dolois as per custom and to hold elections for companystituting the Committee under Section 25A of the Act, the State Authorities issued a numberice for election of Doloies and that election was held on 16.11.2011.
The interpretation of Section 25 of the Act is number in issue here.
It was also clarified that in respect of religious functions, status quo shall be maintained.
An attempt was made by the shabiats, brahamins as well number brahmins including priests Deories of Nanan Devalayas to democratize the management of Kamakhya temple by diluting the companytrol of Bordeori Samaj and the Dolois by framing a new scheme of management described as the Kamakhya Debutter Regulation, 1998 providing for companystitution of a Board for the superintendence, management and administration of all the affairs of the main Kamakhya temple and also the temples of Dasa Mahavidyalaya and all other temples and places of religious significance in and around the three hills of Nilachal described as temples companyplex.
In terms of the order dated 13.5.2002 passed by the Honble High Court and the orders dated 11.11.2011 and 21.11.2011 passed by this Honble Court, the administration of the temple has been carried on by the appellants, the Kamakhya Debuttar Board.
That Division Bench did number go further into the issue because it companycluded that it may number be necessary to do so because the vires of Section 25A of the Act had been upheld and that would take care of any remaining companytroversy between the parties.
The Diety of Shri Shri Kamakhya is one of the most venerated Goddesses.
Sri Jnanada Prasad Sarma and Sri Paran Chandra Sarma were elected as the Doloi and Saru Doloi respectively.
Against such direction the then Dolois preferred writ petition No.6221 of 1998 which was heard and disposed of by the Division Bench of the High Court of Guwahati along with writ Petition No.3118 of 1994 relating to vires of Section 25A of the Act.
Once the petitioners gave up their claim of having approached in the capacity of administrators members of the Board of Trustees, relief of action in terms of Section 25A of the Act companyld have been granted for the benefit of the religious institution even on the asking of petitioners in their capacity as Shebaits of the Temple.
72 of 2012 as well as in Writ Petition No.91 of 2012.
72 of 2012 seeks to challenge the election of Dolois as well as the legality of the electoral companylege prepared for that election, mainly on the ground that women Bordeories and other Deuris, both male and female, were wrongly excluded from the same.
The Division Bench did numbere that the District Judge had passed the order number in any judicial proceeding but in accordance with the past practice whereunder parties used to approach the Court of District Judge for making arrangement for companystituting Committee to manage the affairs of the Kamakhya temple.
It may be mentioned that this Honble Court in its order dated 21.11.2011 had stated that the State Government shall take steps to frame rules and any objection to the rules should be challenged only before this Court.
The Dolois were permitted to perform worship but the office companyplex was directed to be handed over to the Kamakhya Debutter Board and such arrangement was to remain operative until the companystitution of Managing Committee under Section 25A. Admittedly, the said Committee has number been companystituted as yet because the rules framed for the purpose and numberified on 27.1.2012 have been challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No.
The other writ petition bearing No.140 of 2012 filed by Sailen Sharma, petitioner of Writ Petition No.
By an order dated 25.9.2000, a learned Single Judge issued rule and stayed the operation of order dated 15.9.2000.
The Deputy Commissioner or Sub divisional Officer or his numberinee President.
So far Dolois have always been elected as per the old custom, by the Bordeori Samaj.
The aforesaid three writ petitions, two of the year 2000 and third of the year 2002 were disposed of by the learned Single Judge, as numbered at the outset, by a companymon judgment dated 6.8.2004.
In addition, in writ petition No.2955 of 2002 Mr. Riju Prasad Sarma as petitioner went on to describe himself as the administrator of Maa Kamakhya Debutter with a further claim that as an administrator he is responsible and authorized to represent the grievances of Brahamins and number Brahamins Shebaits as well as devotees of the Maa Kamakhya Debutter.
XIX of 1987 which received the assent of the Governor on 19.10.1987.
140 of 2012 filed by Shri Shailen Sharma and others challenging the actual election of Dolois held on 16.11.2011 on the ground that companyfining the electoral companylege and right to vote to only the male Bordeuris to the exclusion of Deuris both male and female and the female Bordeuris is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional in law.
On the issue of jurisdiction of the District Judge, the order reveals that the entire records relating to the management of the Kamakhya temple disclosed that earlier also on many occasions the Managing Committee of even those very persons who had challenged the jurisdiction of the District Judge had accepted numberices and directions regarding proper management of the temple without raising any challenge to the exercise of such power by the District Judge.
representing the Kamakhya Debuttar Board challenging the final judgment and order of 25.10.2011 passed by the Division Bench of the Honble Guhati High Court.
Further, to look after the management of the Kamakhya Temple, an ad hoc Managing Committee of six members along with Deputy Commissioner as Chairman was also ordered.
On 3rd February, 2012 this Court by another interim order directed Deputy Commissioner to take companytrol of precious articles belonging to the deity and prepare an inventory.
For the reasons assigned by the Division Bench of the High Court, with which we are in agreement, it has to be held that Kamakhya Debutter Regulation, 1998 is number a valid instrument and has numbersanction of law for depriving the customary rights of the Bordeori Samaj to elect the Dolois who have been customarily exercising the right to manage the religious as well as secular affairs of the Kamakhya Temple.
The appellants challenged that order by filing a writ petition in September 2000 itself bearing W.P. C No.5385 of 2000 before the High Court.
However, there was a fresh writ petition filed directly before the Division Bench bearing Writ Petition No.923/2005 preferred in the name of The Deity, Sri Sri Ma Kamakhya claimed to be represented by appellant Riju Prasad Sarma who further described himself as the Administrator, Kamakhya Debutter.
c 5 five elected members to be elected from amongst the devotees.
The judgment also indicates that descendents of the five principal and leading families of priests who were originally appointed for the Kamakhya temple were also sometimes called companylectively as five Pandas and sometimes as five Deoris.
The State Government has paid only Rs.80,500/ and further deposited Rs.50,000/ with the Honble High Court till date for acquisition of the land belonging to the temple.
This was number an issue before them as it was number even the subject matter of the writ appeal.
The Statement of Objects Reasons of the Amending Act are numbered in paragraph 111 of the impugned judgment under appeal as follows The statement of objects and reasons of the Amending Act discloses the following impelling factors therefor i certain religious or charitable institutions of public nature whose lands had been acquired did neither take proper steps for finalization of companypensation number did they file appeal within the stipulated time ii it was felt necessary to enhance the annuity payable to the institution due to rise of market price of essential companymodities for its maintenance and upkeep iii it was felt imperative to have companytrol over the annuity and to verify and audit the accounts to the satisfaction of the companycerned authority.
The last election of Dolois by the members of Bordeori families or bordeori samaj was made in 1991 1992 in accordance with the custom.
The main Kamakhya temple and the subsidiary temples in and around the three Hills of Nilachal are companylectively known under the general name of Kamakhya.
In this writ petition the petitioner claimed to represent the Deity.
On 21.11.2011 further interim order was passed by this Court for framing of rules for election of members of Managing Committee as per Section 25A of the Act and also for holding of such elections.
There was numbercross appeal preferred by the State Government or the Private Respondents.
311 of 2004 were similarly highlighted to show that at various places the Debutter Board had claimed a status for itself even in the writ appeals.
Though the electoral companylege under Section 25A of the Act for the post of ex officio Secretary to the managing companymittee to be companystituted under the said provision of the Act includes deuris Bordeuris, the said Rules have illegally excluded the Deuris both male and female and the female bordeuris of their voting rights as well as the right to companytest.
In Paragraph 34 the appellant Riju Prasad Sarma made a specific prayer that the annuity which is payable under the Act be paid to the Maa Kamakhya Debutter Board.
Admittedly, the Dolois as agents of Bordeoris are recognized as the Head of the public religious endowment of Kamakhya including the Maa Kamakhya Temple.
The appellants preferred a limited Writ Appeal companyfined to the scope of Section 25A of the said Act.
They were directed to hand over charge of office to the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, Guwahati within three days.
Along with the Civil Appeals three writ petitions bearing No.72, 91 and 140 of 2012 have also been heard together as companynected matters because they either throw a challenge to the validity of the Section 25A of the Act or the Rules framed thereunder or to the actual election of Dolois held on 16.11.2011 on account of this Court number staying the direction of the Division Bench to hold such election governed by custom.
The custom of electing the Dolois was numberdoubt attempted to be changed by a group of persons who claimed to have formulated and adopted the Kamakhya Debutter Regulation but such Regulation does number have acceptance of the Bordeori Samaj and the dispute on account of the Kamakhya Debutter Regulation is number before this companyrt by way of the present proceedings.
Writ Petition No.
An Ex Officio Secretary to be elected by the Deuries Bor Deuries.
The issue regarding the administration of number ritual activities other than those companyered by Section 25A of the said Act was never and is number the subject matter of these proceedings.
The families of the priests of the main temple call themselves Bordeuris.
However, the Division Bench of the Honble Guwahati High Court has erroneously reversed the finding of the Learned Single Judge on the issue of the locus standi of the appellants and has further held without any basis whatsoever that the Kamakhya Debutter Regulations Kamakhya Debutter Board has numbersanctity in law pg.34 36 .
To same effect was the first and main submission advanced by learned senior companynsel Sri Ashok H. Desai, appearing for the appellants.
Pendency of that writ petition companyld number have posed any hindrance to election of successor Dolois after five years, in 1996 1997.
The writ petition No.
Further, the two Dolois has been given exclusive monopoly in religious affairs by this Honble Court vide its order dated 21.11.2011.
D9/ K KT/6/95 maintained in companynection with Kamakhya temple, disposed of the petition filed by Bordeori samaj of the Kamakhya temple seeking election of the managing Committee of Kamakhya temple against which the then Dolois and some others had filed objections.
The temple and the site are referred to in the Sanskrit text Kalikapurana which is one of the eighteen upapurana.
This judgment shall govern all the matters numbericed above.
The companytents of the writ appeal No.
In this third writ petition also an interim order was passed on 13.5.2002 restraining the respondents therein number to use the main Bharal, existing office of the Kamakhya Debutter Board and number to interfere with the functioning of Peethas of the Jal Kuber and Dhan Kuber and also religious functions of the Kamakhya Temple.
The term of the Committee shall be for three years from the date of its companystitution.
In view of their categorical submissions that this Court may number make any observation which might affect either of the parties in Section 92 CPC proceeding, we leave the matter at rest without companymenting on the provisions of Kamakhya Debutter Regulations.
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. The Civil Appeals arise out of three writ petitions, two of the year 2000 and one of the year 2002 which were heard together and disposed of by a learned Single Judge of Guwahati High Court by a companymon judgment and order dated 06.08.2004.
