The Division Bench of Supreme Court consisting of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka held that the contempt jurisdiction is always discretionary which should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. However, it is always open for the petitioner to adopt appropriate proceedings in accordance with the law.
Facts
The petitioner is the elected Dolois representing members of Bordeuri Samaj of Kamakhya Devalaya. It is the case of the petitioner that the right of Bordeuri Samaj to manage religious affairs of Kamakhya Temple has been recognised from time immemorial. Bordeuri Samaj consists of members of five families and Dolois (head priest) is elected from amongst the members of the five families. It is pointed out that in the year 1998, a self-styled body in the name and style of Kamakhya Debutter Board (‘Debutter Board’) was formed by the respondent nos.1 to 4 and that they have illegally usurped the power that has been historically vested in the office of Dolois.
Procedural History
Initially, notice of these petitions was issued only to the respondent no.5 (Deputy Commissioner). Thereafter, notice was also issued to the respondent nos.1 to 4 as well. Through an order passed in these contempt petitions, this Court recorded undertaking of the respondent nos.1 to 3 that they will furnish whatever remaining details relating to their bank accounts and the funds available in their accounts, which was recorded without prejudice to the stand of the said respondents that certain accounts are not connected with Kamakhya Devalaya. Further order passed by this Court records that the respondent no.5 stated that an inquiry is being held to find out all the details. This Court directed the respondent nos.1 to 4 to file copies of the consolidated accounts, if not filed earlier, as well as copies of the entries for the relevant period in the pass books of all the bank accounts. By the Order of this Court the State of Assam was ordered to be made a party to the petition. The State Government filed an affidavit in terms of the order of this Court incorporating the steps which it was proposing to take for implementing the Judgment dated 7th July 2015. Accordingly, an affidavit was filed which was dealt with in the order dated 15th November 2019. By an order dated 31st January 2020, this Court directed that a criminal case be lodged in connection with the misappropriation and a proper investigation be conducted within a period of three months.
Contentions made
Appellant: The learned Senior Counsel invited Court’s attention to a report submitted by the ADG of Police, which recorded that there was a misappropriation of a sum of Rs.7,62,03,498/- and that the office bearers of Debutter Board did not cooperate for the inquiry. The report of the inquiry officer was never questioned by the said respondents and, therefore, they were under an obligation to pay the said amount to the Temple. The subject matter of the Judgment dated 7th July 2015 is not only the Kamakhya Temple but also the other subsidiary temples. By filing an affidavit, the respondent nos.1, 3 and 4 are seeking to contend that the Judgment dated 7th July 2015 was only in respect of the main Kamakhya Temple. In the affidavit, the respondents have contended that the properties of Kamakhya Temple need to be demarcated. There is a gross breach committed by the respondent nos.1 to 4 of the directions contained in the Judgment dated 7th July 2015.
Respondent: The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent nos.1, 3 and 4 submitted that there is no direction in the Judgment dated 7th July 2015 to pay any amount to the petitioner or to the Deity. There is no dispute that as per the directions contained in paragraph 73 of the said Judgment, the immovable properties of the Temple have already been handed over. Reliance was placed on Sudhir Vasudeva, Chairman & MD. ONGC & Ors. vs M.George Ravishekaran & Ors. Considering the directions issued in paragraph 73 of the Judgment, after having handed over all the immovable properties, an action for contempt cannot be initiated against the respondents.
Observations of the Court
Having carefully perused the submissions and judgments relied upon, the Bench observed that:
“Perusal of the Judgment shows that there is no discussion therein about the liability of the respondent nos.1 to 4 to pay any specific amount. Paragraph 73 refers to premises and other properties of Kamakhya Temple. However, there is no finding recorded that any amount is payable by the respondent nos.1 to 4 to the petitioner. It is recorded in the said order that the report of the ADG, prima facie, establishes misappropriation of funds by the Debutter Board. Even in this order, there is no direction issued to pay the money which has been allegedly misappropriated. The reason is that the prima facie observation about misappropriation is based on the view expressed in the report. What is observed in the said report is not conclusive.”
They further observed that:
“Perusal of the order dated 31st January 2020 shows that there was no opportunity granted to the parties to file any objections to the report. It cannot be said that as the respondents did not object to the report, they have accepted the liability to pay the amount of Rs.7,62,03,498/-. Moreover, the observations in the report cannot be treated as concluded findings. Even assuming that paragraph 73 of the Judgment dated 7th July 2015 includes a direction to pay money, there is no adjudication made to decide what is the extent of liability. Hence, in our view, no case made out to take action under Article 129 of the Constitution read with the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.”
Judgment
Accordingly, the contempt petitions along with the pending applications (if any) stood disposed of.
Case Name: The Bordeuri Samaj of Sri Sri Maa Kamakhya vs Riju Prasad Sarma & Ors.
Citation: Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 853-855 of 2015 In Civil Appeal Nos. 3276-3278 of 2013
Bench: Justice Ajay Rastogi, Justice Abhay S. Oka
Decided on: 15th December 2021
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
