[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Allahabad High Court
Girraj Sevak Samiti Bada Bazar ... vs Lalit Sharma And 6 Others on 16 April, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:84308
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1036 of 2026
Girraj Sevak Samiti Bada Bazar Govardhan Tehsil And District Mathura
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Lalit Sharma And 6 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Ravi Anand Agarwal, Shreya Gupta
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Devansh Misra, Hridai Narain Pandey
Court No. - 5
HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
1. Heard Sri Anil Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Shreya Gupta, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-petitioner, Sri Adul Dayal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri H.N. Pandey for the defendant-respondent no.5 and Sri Devansh Misra for Respondent no.1.
2. Since a statement has been made by the learned counsel for the rival parties, that they do not propose to file any further affidavit and the writ petition be decided on the basis of the documents available on record, as they are well equipped with the instructions. With the consent of the parties, the petition is being decided at the fresh stage.
3. The case of the plaintiff-appellant-petitioner, Girraj Sevak Samiti Bada Bazar Govardhan Tehsil and District Mathura through Rama Kant Kaushik claiming himself to be the Mantri/Pradhan Mantri of the Samiti. It is claimed that owing to the allegations of mismanagement of the Samitis in District Mathura, the matter traveled upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. NIL of 2025 arising out of SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024, Ishwar Chand Sharma vs. Devendra Kumar Sharma, wherein orders were passed on 15.05.2025, relevant extract whereof is quoted hereinunder:- "23. It is an established fact that the historical temples are old structures; they require proper upkeep and other logistic support, and added to the fact is that in a large number of temples, Receivers have been appointed for decades now which was originally intended to be a stop-gap temporary measure. It is unfortunate that while appointing Receivers, the concerned Courts are not keeping in mind that Mathura and Vrindavan, the two most sacred places for Vaishnav Sampradayas and, therefore, persons from Vaishnav Sampradayas should be appointed as Receivers. This will give true meaning to the High Court's, directions pertaining to persons who are having adequate administrative experience, historical, religious, social background and not Advocates to be appointed as Receivers. 24. Accordingly, the order dated 08.11.2023 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in PIL No. 1509 of 2022 is modified to the extent that the State of Uttar Pradesh/Respondent No. 4 is permitted to utilise the temple fund in order to purchase the land around the Temple as per the Scheme proposed, provided that the land so acquired shall be in the name of the Deity/Trust. Further, the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mathura is directed to comply with the Impugned Order dated 27.08.2024, and appoint a Receiver having relevant adequate administrative experience, historical, religious and social background preferably belonging to the Vaishnav Sampradaya. The present appeal, along with the IAs, are disposed of in the aforementioned terms."
4. According to the plaintiff-appellant-petitioner, an exercise stood undertaken for appointment of the Receiver and thereafter, an order came to be passed on 11.09.2024, whereby the candidature of Lalit Sharma son of Deep Chand Purohit, Respondent no.1 and one K.K. Sharma along with the others came to be considered and thereafter, it was ordered that K.K. Sharma be appointed as a Receiver. Thereafter, again with the passage of time, it stood necessitated that a fresh Receiver be appointed and Sri Lalit Sharma along with the others applied and on 14.07.2025 in O.S. No.332 of 1999, an order came to be passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Mathura appointing Sri Lalit Sharma son of Deep Chand Purohit, Respondent no.1, as the Receiver. Allegation of the plaintiff-appellant-petitioner is that the said exercise stood undertaken without putting to notice the plaintiff-appellant-petitioner, particularly when the plaintiff-appellant-petitioner in the pending Suit no.332 of 1999 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mathura, preferred an impleadment application which was allowed on 04.03.2010 impleading Rama Kant Kaushik as the plaintiff in the said suit against which the other faction Sri Giriraj Sevak Samiti Bada Bazar, Govardhan, Tehsil and District Mathura through the present Mantri/ Pradhan Mantri preferred a Civil Revision no. 40 of 2010, before the Court of Addl. District Judge, Court no.8 Mathura and the revision came to be allowed on 14.08.2014 setting aside the order dated 04.03.2010 which led to filing of Writ-C No.45851 of 2014 by the present petitioner Giriraj Sevak Samiti through Mantri/ Pradhan and others vs. Giriraj Sevak Samiti through its Secretary which was allowed on 09.12.2014 by this Court. Submission is that the order dated 14.07.2025 passed by the Trial Court appointing Lalit Sharma as Receiver is in violation of principles of natural justice, particularly when once Sri Rama Kant Kaushik was impleaded as a plaintiff, thus he had a say to the matter.
5. Aggrieved against the order dated 14.07.2025, the plaintiff appellant petitioner preferred a Misc. Civil Appeal no.85 of 2025, Sri Giriraj Sevak Samiti vs. Lalit Sharma and others before the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Court no.1 Mathura along with a stay application for staying the effect and operation of the order dated 14.07.2025 and since the stay application was not being decided, so the present petitioner preferred Matter under Article 227 No.11915 of 2025 in which an order was passed on 30.10.2025 for deciding the application for interim relief in the pending appeal. Thereafter now on 06.12.2025, the injunction application being Paper-5 Ga has been rejected.
6. Questioning the orders dated 14.07.2025 and 06.12.2025, the present petition has been preferred.
7. This Court entertained the petition on 13.03.2026. Thereafter a supplementary affidavit dated 13.04.2026 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner.
8. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order dated 14.07.2025 appointing the Respondent no.1 as Receiver as well as the order dated 06.12.2025 rejecting the stay application cannot be sustained, even for a single moment. Elaborating the said submission, it is contended that once an exercise stood undertaken for appointment of the Receiver and the candidature of the respondent no.1 Lalit Sharma was considered and he was found unsuitable by virtue of the order dated 11.09.2024, then there remained no occasion to treat him to be suitable after approximately one year on 14.07.2025. Submission is that the order dated 11.09.2024, is an order wherein the testimonials and the experience of Lalit Sharma was considered, though he might not have appeared before the Committee, but documentary evidence is available on record. Further submission is that once post passing of the order by the Trial Court the present petitioner was impleaded as a plaintiff in the said suit, which stood affirmed by this Court in a litigation at the behest of the present petitioner, then his say was necessary and once the said ground stood raised in the memo of appeal, then without considering the same, the stay application ought not to have been rejected.
9. Countering the submission so made by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, Sri Atul Dayal learned Senior Counsel who appears for the fifth respondent submits tht the very basis of the challenge so raised by the petitioner is having no substratum particularly when before passing the order dated 14.07.2025, there happens to be order-sheet / document showing the signatures and the presence of the petitioner. He further submits that the order dated 11.09.2024 which has been heavily relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has no basis particularly when though the order speaks that testimonials have been submitted by the first respondent, but the first respondent was not present and in his absence order came to be passed and thereafter by order dated 14.07.2025, he has been appointed as a Receiver bearing in mind this interaction with the Court and also the fact that in order to safeguard the interest of the Samiti/Society, certain conditions have also been earmarked. Contention is that only stay application has been rejected but the main proceedings are pending and further the respondent no.1 happens to be enjoying the office of the Receiver since 14.07.2025, thus a direction be issued for disposal of the appeal in a time bound manner.
10. Sri Devansh Misra, who appears for Lalit Sharma, Respondent no.1, has adopted the submission of Sri Atudl Dayal, learned Senior Counsel.
11. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the records carefully.
12. Facts are not an issue. It is not in dispute that the bone of contention between the parties is whether Lalit Sharma, Respondent no.1 could have been appointed as Receiver or not in the wake of the guidelines set out by the Hon?ble Apex Court. Though on 11.09.2024, the court below had rejected the claim set up by Respondent no.1, Lalit Sharma for being appointed as Receiver and by virtue of the order dated 14.07.2025, his candidature has been found to be suitable and he had been appointed, but the crucial question, which arises for determination is whether the writ petitioner herein was heard or not. Apparently, an appeal came to be preferred by the present petitioner along with the said application and against non-disposal of the injunction application, he preferred proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, whereupon a direction was issued to decide stay application which has been rejected on 06.12.2025. The order dated 14.07.2025 prima facie does not disclose that the writ petitioner had been heard.
13. Be that as it may be, since a ground has been raised by the writ petitioner in the Memo of Appeal that he has not been heard while passing order dated 14.07.2025 and further according to Respondent no.5, he was heard as is apparent from the order-sheet dated 3/4.07.2025, but the Court finds that there is no consideration. Moreover, at this stage, stay application has been rejected though according to the writ petitioner, the order dated 14.07.2025, against which an appeal had been preferred, was an exparte order, though the writ petitioner happens to be necessary party and that is why he was impleaded as a plaintiff-petitioner.
14. At this stage, Sri Atul Dayal submits that let the writ petitioner be heard on interim application.
15. To such a submission, Sri Anil Bhushan as per the instructions from his client, has no objection.
16. Accordingly, the petition is being decided in the following terms:-
(a) The order dated 06.10.2025 passed by the Court of Addl. District Judge, Court No.1, Mathura in Misc. Civil Appeal No.85 of 2025, Sri Giriraj Sevak Samiti vs. Lalit Sharma is set aside.
(b) The matter is remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order in the application under Section 5Ga.
(c) The writ petitioner and the parties including the parties to the litigation shall file a certified copy of the order passed today along with the self attested copy of the present petition before the court below by 24.04.2026.
(d) On the said motion, the appellate court shall hear the parties and pass an appropriate orders on the stay application without granting unnecessary adjournments.
(e) All the contentions are left open to the parties to raise. The order dated 06.12.2025 passed in Misc. Civil Appeal no.85 of 2025, Sri Giriraj Sevak Samiti vs. Lalit Sharma shall be dependent upon the fresh orders to be passed in that regard,
17. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of.
(Vikas Budhwar,J.)
April 16, 2026
N.S.Rathour
