Delhi High Court
Shri Adya Katyayani Shakti Peeth ... vs Union Of India & Ors. on 21 July, 2009
Author: Sunil Gaur
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
