A-5
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI
Judgment reserved on: July14, 2009
Judgment pronounced on: July 21, 2009
+ W.P. (C ) No. 4390 of 1998
&
C.M. No. 11506 of 2001
% Shri Adya Katyayani Shakti Peeth Mandir & ors....
Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rishi Kesh, Advocate
versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents
Through: Mr. C.M. Oberoi, Advocate for
Respondents No. 1 & 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local
papers may be allowed to see
the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be
reported in the Digest?
SUNIL GAUR, J.
1. This writ petition purports to be a public interest litigation, but it is not. Petitioners are the Pujaris of "Adhya Katyayani Shakti Peeth Mandir Trust", Chattarpur, New Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Mandir Trust') and the relief claimed in this petition is in the nature of writ of mandamus to the official- respondents to take over the control and management of Mandir Trust. Formulation of W.P.(C ) No. 4390 of 1998 Page 1 proper rules and regulations governing the service conditions of Pujaris and the staff of the temple has been also prayed for in this petition. Respondent Nos. 5 to 11 are the office bearers of the Mandir Trust and it is also prayed that a direction be issued to aforesaid respondents to take back seventy six (76) retrenched Pujaris and other connected staff to this Mandir Trust.
2. The question raised in this petition pertain to swindling of donation and offerings made at Chattarpur temple, New Delhi and also regarding the verbal termination of the service of Pujaris and other staff in this temple. What is claimed in this writ petition is that the temple Management should issue appointment letters to all the Pujaris, minimum wages be paid to them and other service benefits be also granted to them.
3. It is worthwhile to notice that the Mandir Trust is not a party to these proceedings. However, subsequently the amendment of the writ petition was sought to implead the Mandir Trust as a respondent and to seek a direction to Mandir Trust to treat the petitioners as regular employees of the Mandir Trust, Chhatarpur, New Delhi. It is a matter of record that the aforesaid amendment is pending consideration till date.
W.P.(C ) No. 4390 of 1998 Page 2
4. The stand of the then Chairman of the Mandir Trust i.e. respondent No.-7 in the counter filed to this petition is that this petition does not disclose any legal or constitutional right or entitlement of the petitioner to seek relief, as claimed in this petition. The stand of respondent No.7 has been that the petitioners are assuming themselves to be the employees of the Mandir Trust and infact they are not so. Though the question of maintainability of this petition has been raised by taking the stand that a writ does not lie against a Trust and reliance has been placed upon decisions reported in 1990 Lab. I.C. NOC (Ker) 104; 1993 (25) DRJ DB 490; AIR 1989 SC 1607; J.T. 2002 (10) SC 561; (2002) 10 SCC 487; LLJ (1981) Delhi 174; (1997) 6 SCC 189; AIR 1993 SC 2086; JT 1994 (5) SC 152 and another decision of this Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6769 of 2003, titled as ´N.K. Bindra and another vs. Union of India", but I find that this question need not be gone into in these proceedings for the reason that this petition raises disputed questions of fact. Apart from this, the Mandir Trust has not been impleaded as a party to these proceedings. If it is done now, then it would amount to de novo proceedings, which would serve no fruitful purpose.
5. The Apex Court in the case of "A. Jithendernath v. Jubilee Hills Coop. House Building Society and another"
W.P.(C ) No. 4390 of 1998 Page 3 (2006) 10 SCC 96 has reiterated that disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into in the writ proceedings and as and when any occasion arises therefor, must be gone into and adjudicated upon by an appropriate forum. This position of law again stands reaffirmed by the Apex Court in the case of "Raj Kumar Singh v. Union of India and others" JT 2009 (2) SC 58.
6. This petition certainly raises disputed questions of fact and in the light of the aforesaid, permitting amendment of the writ petition at this belated stage would serve no purpose. Therefore, the prayer for amending the writ petition is hereby declined.
7. In "Union of India (UOI) and Another. Vs. S.B. Vohra and Others", reported in AIR 2004 SC 1402, the Apex Court has held as under:-
"The High Court, however, should not ordinarily issue a writ of or in the nature of mandamus and ought to refer the matter back to the Central/State Government with suitable directions pointing out the irrelevant factors which are required to be excluded in taking the decision and the relevant factors which are required to be considered therefore. The statutory duties should be allowed to be performed by the statutory authorities at the first instance."
W.P.(C ) No. 4390 of 1998 Page 4
8. The question whether the Mandir Trust is amenable to the writ jurisdiction is left open. In my considered view, it would be appropriate to direct the petitioners to make a Representation to the Mandir Trust within four weeks from today and it is expected that the governing body of the Mandir Trust would give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and thereafter decide petitioner's Representation by a speaking order within twelve weeks from the date they are apprised of this order.
9. With the directions as aforesaid, this petition and pending application stand disposed of.
10. No costs.
Sunil Gaur, J.
July 21, 2009 rs W.P.(C ) No. 4390 of 1998 Page 5