Gauhati High Court
Rajendra Das vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 25 February, 2025
Page No.# 1/19
GAHC010178462018
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5616/2018
RAJENDRA DAS,
MAHANT OF SRI SITARAM THAKURBARI, SRCB ROAD, FANCY BAZAR,
GUWAHATI- 01
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GHY-
06
2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
KAMRUP(M)
GUWAHATI
PANBAZAR- 01
3:THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
PANBAZAR- 01
4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
GUWAHATI REVENUE CIRCLE
KAMRUP(M)
5:THE PRESIDENT OF SRI SITARAM THAKURBARI MANAGING
COMMITTEE
SRCB ROAD
FANCY BAZAR
GUWAHATI- 01
6:NABADEEP PATHAK
ACS
ADDL. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND ADDL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
KAMRUP(M)
Page No.# 2/19
GUWAHATI- 0
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K N CHOUDHURY, MR. J PATOWARY,MR D DEKA,MR D J
DAS
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM,
Linked Case : WP(C)/5757/2018
RAJENDRA DAS
MAHANT OF SRI SITARAM THAKURBARI
SRCB ROAD
FANCY BAZAR
GUWAHATI-1.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 14 ORS.
REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06.
2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
KAMRUP (M)
GUWAHATI
PANBAZAR-1.
3:THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
PANBAZAR-1.
4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
GUWAHATI REVENUE CIRCLE
KAMRUP (METRO).
5:THE PRESIDENT OF SRI SITARAN THAKURBARI MANAGING
COMMITTEE
SRCB ROAD
FANCY BAZAR
Page No.# 3/19
GUWAHATI-1.
6:SRI NABADEEP PATHAK
ACS
ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND ADDL. DISTRICT
MAGISTRATE
KAMRUP (M)
GUWAHATI-01.
7:DR K.P. GUPTA
MAY BE SERVED THROUGH SRI NABADEEP PATHAK
ACS
ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND ADDL. DISRICT MAGISTRATE
KAMRUP (M)
GUWAHATI.
8:SRI ASHOK GARODIA
MAY BE SERVED THROUGH SRI NABADEEP PATHAK
ACS
ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND ADDL. DISRICT MAGISTRATE
KAMRUP (M)
GUWAHATI.
9:MAHANT LAL DAS TYAGI
MAY BE SERVED THROUGH SRI NABADEEP PATHAK
ACS
ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND ADDL. DISRICT MAGISTRATE
KAMRUP (M)
GUWAHATI.
10:SRI HARSH AJITSARIA
MAY BE SERVED THROUGH SRI NABADEEP PATHAK
ACS
ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND ADDL. DISRICT MAGISTRATE
KAMRUP (M)
GUWAHATI.
11:SRI MUNI BABA
MAY BE SERVED THROUGH SRI NABADEEP PATHAK
Page No.# 4/19
ACS
ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND ADDL. DISRICT MAGISTRATE
KAMRUP (M)
GUWAHATI.
12:SRI J.P. GOENKA
MAY BE SERVED THROUGH SRI NABADEEP PATHAK
ACS
ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND ADDL. DISRICT MAGISTRATE
KAMRUP (M)
GUWAHATI.
13:SRI RAM JIVAN PANDEY
MAY BE SERVED THROUGH SRI NABADEEP PATHAK
ACS
ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND ADDL. DISRICT MAGISTRATE
KAMRUP (M)
GUWAHATI.
14:SRI NEWAL MORE
MAY BE SERVED THROUGH SRI NABADEEP PATHAK
ACS
ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND ADDL. DISRICT MAGISTRATE
KAMRUP (M)
GUWAHATI.
15:SRI S. SANGANERIA
MAY BE SERVED THROUGH SRI NABADEEP PATHAK
ACS
ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND ADDL. DISRICT MAGISTRATE
KAMRUP (M)
GUWAHATI.
------------
Advocate for : K N CHOUDHURY
Advocate for : GA
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 14 ORS.
Page No.# 5/19
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE
JUDGMENT
Date : 25-02-2025
Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. D.J. Das,
learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Goswami, learned State Counsel for
the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Mr. J.C. Gaur, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5
and 7 to 15.
2. As both these Writ Petitions are analogous, same were heard together and disposed of
by this common judgment and order.
3. The challenge made in Writ Petition (C) No.5616/2018 is the impugned order bearing
No.WA/2018/28/CA-A, dated 24.07.2018, passed by the Deputy Commissioner & District
Magistrate, Kamrup (M) District, whereby one Sri Nabadeep Pathak, ACS, Addl. Deputy
Commissioner & Addl. District Magistrate, Kamrup (M) District, Guwahati has been directed to
take over the overall control of Sri Sitaram Thakurbari situated at SRCB Road, Fancy Bazar,
Guwahati and to streamline the dispute.
4. In the Writ Petition (C) No.5757/2018, the petitioner challenges the order 16.08.2018,
passed by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner & Addl. District Magistrate, Kamrup (M) District,
Guwahati whereby in pursuant to the impugned order dated 24.07.2018 by the Deputy
Commissioner & District Magistrate, Kamrup (M) District, has appointed some persons
including the private respondents by entrusting responsibilities on temporary basis for
maintenance of Sri Sitaram Thakurbari, thereby fixing a meeting comprising the said
members and tenants as well as other registered members for the welfare of Sri Sitaram
Thakurbari.
5. The brief history of the case and its facts as summarised in the petition are that Sri
Sitaram Thakurbari situated at SRCB Road, Fancy Bazar, Guwahati was established about 200
years back by few devotees who hailed from the State of Bihar as per the traditions followed
Page No.# 6/19
in the 'Ramanuj Panth'. In the Thakurbaris of the above Panth, the deities of Lord Rama and
Godess Sita are mainly worshiped along with Lord Narayana. In every Thakurbari, there exists
a special sub temple for worshiping other deities. In such Thakurbaris of 'Ramanuj Panth', the
pujas and rituals are performed in a special traditional manner under the authority/guidance
of the duly anointed Mahant. As per the tradition followed in the Panth, a future Mahant is
selected as per the wishes of the Mahant who is holding office and after his demise, the
selected Mahant is elevated to the Ashana by performing necessary rituals in presence of
devotees of the Thakurbari. As per the tradition of the Panth once a disciple is elevated as
Mahant of the Thakurbari, he continues to be in that status till the end of his life. Further, in a
Thakurbari under the 'Ramanuj Panth', its Mahant is treated as the sole custodian of all
moveable and immovable properties of the Thakurbari and as the sole religious authority as
well as administrator of the organization.
6. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 2015, he was anointed as Mahant of Sri
Sitaram Thakurbari, SRCB Road, Fancy Bazar, Guwahati as per the wishes of the earlier
Mahant Late Pitambar Das. After his elevation to the status of Mahant of Sri Sitaram
Thakurbari, the petitioner has been discharging his duties and responsibilities in the said
capacity to the utmost satisfaction of all concerned including the devotees and disciples of the
Thakurbari. It is contended that since the anointment of the petitioner as Mahant, a small
group of tenants of the Thakurbari in connivance with some businessmen of the locality, who
are having vested interest, have been systematically creating trouble for the petitioner. The
petitioner contends that their main objective is to grab the landed properties of the
Thakurbari by ousting the petitioner from the status of Mahant by any available means.
Therefore, the said group has been conspiring against the petitioner by spreading rumours.
7. It is contended by the petitioner that the said faction ultimately succeeded in persuading
a female devotee residing within the Thakurbari to lodge an FIR against the petitioner in the
Panbazar Police Station alleging sexual harassment on 22.05.2018. Pursuant thereto, the
Panbazar P.S. Case No. 289/2018, under Sections 354/507/509 of the IPC, read with Section
66D of the Information and Technology Act was registered against the petitioner. Thereafter,
the petitioner was arrested and eventually granted bail on 11.06.2018. After being released
Page No.# 7/19
on bail, the petitioner went to the Sri Sitaram Thakurbari to resume his duties of Mahant but
he was restrained from entering his room by a group of six persons with the help of some
hired goons. The petitioner contends that he being duly anointed Mahant of the said Sri
Sitaram Thakurbari, he cannot be restrained from performing his duties. The said action of
restrainment of the petitioner was protested by other devotees and disciples of the
Thakurbari, in support of the petitioner. However, the petitioner was prevented from resuming
his normal duties by creating a chaotic situation. The petitioner had to request the
Commissioner of Police, Guwahati for police protection in view of the threat to his life. A
complaint was also lodged on behalf of the devotees before the Commissioner of Police on
15.06.2017.
8. It is the contention of the petitioner that he being illegally and forcefully prevented from
performing his rightful duties as Mahant of Sri Sitaram Thakurbari by a section of people who
are having vested interest in the matter, they are trying to grab the private land belonging to
the petitioner over which the said Thakurbari is located. It is contended that the plot of land
measuring 15.52 Ares, covered by Dag No. 495, KP Patta No. 334 under Guwahati Revenue
Circle, Guwahati was mutated in the name of erstwhile Mahant Pitambar Das and after his
demise, the said plot of land has been mutated in the name of the petitioner. The land
records pertaining to the said plot would reveal that the group of people who are trying to
grab the land in question, never had anything to do with the right, title and interest of the
land, as the said plot of land has always been in the name of the Mahants of the Thakurbari
and the land revenue are being paid regularly by the petitioner along with other bills.
9. It is contended that the petitioner is sought to be ousted/ evicted from his own landed
property with an ulterior motive of grabbing the said miyadi patta land. In the process of
preventing the petitioner from resuming his duties, as many valuable properties have already
been stolen from the Sri Sitaram Thakurbari. The petitioner being aggrieved of such illegal
action, filed many complaints before the Officer-in-Charge, Fancy Bazar Police Out Post and
before the Director General of Police, Assam. The authorities, upon receipt of the complaints,
filed by the petitioner had registered a case against the aforesaid group of people vide
Panbazar P.S. Case No. 356/2018, under Sections 109/120 B/341/506 of the IPC read with
Page No.# 8/19
Section 4(2)/5 of the Assam Land Grabbing Act for which, according to the petitioner,
investigation is still on.
10. It is contended that while the matter rested thus, all of a sudden, the Deputy
Commissioner & District Magistrate, Kamrup (M) District issued the impugned order dated
24.07.2018, authorising the Respondent No.6 to take over the overall control of Sri Sitaram
Thakurbari situated at SRCB Road, Fancy Bazar with immediate effect and until further
orders, in the name of streamlining the private dispute. The petitioner contends that the said
plot of land being purely private land, it is not understood how the Deputy Commissioner,
Kamrup (M) District could have passed such order. It is further contended that from a perusal
of the impugned order nothing is discernable as regards the source/provision of law under
which such power has been exercised. Therefore, the petitioner has reason to believe that
the Deputy Commissioner, in connivance with the vested interest group has passed the
impugned order for extraneous considerations so as to legitimize their illegal action.
11. The petitioner contends that though many devotees come to the Sri Sitaram Thakurbari
for religious purpose, however, by no means the said premises could be construed as a public
property. On the contrary the same is a private property registered in the name of the
petitioner and by virtue of being the anointed Mahant, the petitioner is the custodian of the
Thakurbari, including its moveable and immoveable assets. However, in view of such assets
and also considering the value of the land in Guwahati, a small group of people with
nefarious design in their mind has been creating hindrances to take over possession of the
same. Be that as it may, it is contended that the Respondent No. 2 could not have interfered
with the private affairs of the Sri Sitaram Thakurbari, in the manner as is sought to be done.
Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned action clearly indicates abuse of power on the
part of the respondent authorities warranting interference from this Hon'ble Court.
12. Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is apparent
that the exercise of power in the present case is based on extraneous consideration for
achieving an alien purpose or oblique motive and, as such it amounts to malafide and
colourable exercise of power. It is the basic principle of rule of law and good administration
Page No.# 9/19
that even administrative action should be just and fair. An executive order is to satisfy the test
of Article 14 of the Constitution, otherwise the same would be arbitrary. In the instant case,
the impugned order has been issued for achieving an alien/ oblique motive vitiated by
malafide exercise of power on the part of official respondents. The learned Senior Counsel
submits that the authority under which the impugned order has been passed, is not being
discernable the same is legally unsustainable. Even if an order passed in exercise of power
under a statute, it is liable to be quashed on the ground of malafides, dishonesty or corrupt
purpose. Even if it is passed in good faith and with the best of intention to further the
purpose of the legislation which confers the powers, since the authority has to act in
accordance with and within the limits of that legislation, its order can also be challenged if it
is beyond those limits or is passed on grounds extraneous to the legislation or if there are no
grounds at all for passing it or if the grounds are such that no one can reasonably arrive at
the opinion or satisfaction requisite under the legislation. In any of these situations it can well
be said that the authority did not honestly form its opinion or that in forming it, it did not
apply its mind to the relevant facts. In the instant case it is clear that the impugned order has
been issued at the behest of persons who having vested interest in the matter and, as such,
the same cannot be allowed to stand in the eye of law.
13. Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel, submits that the impugned action of the
respondent authorities in issuing the impugned order though the land is a private land
belonging to the petitioner is wholly arbitrary, illegal and unreasonable. The said action
amounts to land grabbing by government officials in the garb of streamlining a private
dispute. Apparently, the petitioner is sought to be ousted/ evicted from his own land in a
most illegal and arbitrary manner. He submits that the private respondents have done
something indirectly with the help of the respondent authorities, which they could not have
done directly. In other words the private respondents have been successful in their ulterior
motive of interfering with the functioning of the Sri Sitaram Thakurbari so as to grab the
private landed property of the petitioner, by ousting him from the Thakurbari in a planned
manner.
14. Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel, submits that had the Government framed
Page No.# 10/19
any enactment for regulating the affairs of the Thakurbari by exercising its power under
Article 25 (2) of the Constitution of India, in that event, perhaps the action of the official
respondents could have been justified. But in the present case, no law has been framed
under Article 25 (2) of the Constitution of India by the Government so as to regulate the
economic/financial activities associated with the Sri Sitaram Thakurbari and in absence of
such law, the impugned action of the official respondents in interfering with the private affairs
of the Thakurbari is wholly unjustified, illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable. He submits that
the impugned action of the authorities, apart from being illegal and arbitrary, is also hit by
Article 26 of the Constitution of India. The right flowing from Article 26 being guaranteed
under Chapter III of the Constitution is a fundamental right which, amongst others, provides
that every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right to manage its
own affairs in matter of religion. The devotees of the Sri Sitaram Thakurbari, including the
Petitioner, being followers of the 'Ramanauj Panth', which is a religious cult in itself, surely
comes within the purview of Article 26 of the Constitution. Further, the petitioner being the
duly anointed Mahant of the said Thakurbari is free to exercise the fundamental rights flowing
from the said Article 26 of the Constitution. Therefore, the impugned action, on the face of it,
has the potential of curtailing the fundamental right of the petitioner as envisaged under
Article 26 of the Constitution apart from violating the long standing practice and, as such, is
bad in the eye of law and legally unsustainable.
15. In support of his submissions, Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel, has placed
reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner,
Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras vs. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamair of Sri
Shirur Mutt, reported in AIR 1954 SC 282.
16. Mr. N. Goswami, learned State Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4, while referring to
the affidavit in opposition filed on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate,
Kamrup (M) District submits that as there was a serious apprehension of breach of peace
within the temple campus of Sri Sitaram Thakurbari, Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Panbazar, Central Police District, Guwahati was directed by Commissioner of Police, Kamrup
(Metro) to submit detailed report on the issue. After conducting an enquiry, Assistant
Page No.# 11/19
Commissioner, submitted a detailed report to the Commissioner of Police vide Memo No.
ACP/PNB.CPD/2018/179-182 dated 20.07.2018. A copy of the aforesaid report was forwarded
to Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) and Sri Sitaram Thakurbari Managing Committee, vide
letter dated 23.07.2018 stating the lawlessness created by petitioner and his accomplices,
requested District Administration to take over the overall control of Sri Sitaram Thakurbari.
Accordingly, the respondent No.2, by exercising its power under section 145 of Cr.P.C., 1973,
in order to prevent the breach of law and order and also to maintain peace in the premises
issued the impugned order dated 24.07. 2018.
17. Mr. Goswami, the learned State Counsel further submits that there was sufficient
reasons to believe that the lawlessness situation will not stop in that temple premises, if such
action had not been taken, therefore, the impugned order was issued to prevent the breach
of law and order. He submits that order dated 24.07.2018 is legally sustainable and due
procedure was followed after issuing the said order in accordance with Section 145 of the
Cr.P.C. and hence, it cannot be said that the same is in violation of Article 14, 19, 21 and 26
of the Constitution of India. In pursuance of order dated 24.07.2018, notices were issued to
the concerned parties and hearing was taken and thereafter, for smooth functioning of the
affairs of the Thakurbari, the order dated 16.08.2018 was issued.
18. Mr. J.C. Gaur, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.5 and 7 to 15, while reputing the
contentions of the petitioner, submits that in the Thakurbaris of "Ramanuj Panth" the puja's
and rituals are performed as per and under the authority/guidance of the anointed Mahanth
alone. He submits that the Veshnav Sampradaya of the Hindu religion resolve to make a
Panchramanandi in the form of Niyamawali in the year 1988 on the demise of Mahanth Shree
Ramswarup Das Ji Maharaj for good governance of the Sadhu samaj in Assam and Maghalaya
wherein the then Mahanth of Sitaram Thakurbari i.e. Mahanth Shri Pitambar Das of Sitaram
Thakurbari was one of the signatory amongst various other persons of the sadhu samaj and
the said Niyamawali since the year 1988 till date is in force and being followed by all the
santhas of Sanatan Dharma and in due furtherance of the said Niyamawali, the present
petitioner was conferred with the Mahanthship of Sitaram Thakurbari on the demise of
Mahanth Shri Pitambar Das on 22.07.2015.
Page No.# 12/19
19. Mr. Gaur, learned counsel, submits that the petitioner was never prevented from
performing his rightful duties as Mahanth of the Sitaram Thakurbari till his performance of the
same in the spirit of the religious dogmas but the entire trouble started when the petitioner
indulged himself in some illegal and obscene acts. The contention of the petitioner that a
section of people are trying to grab the private land belonging to the petitioner over which
the said Thakurbari is located is totally false as the land belongs to Thakurbari and can never
be claimed by the petitioner as his private land. The land donated by the family members of
Sanganaria family for ever in the name of diety shall always remain the land of Thakurbari
and whosoever was/ is anointed as Mahanth has never claimed the said donated land to be
the private land of the said Mahanth, except the present petitioner. The Mahanths were the
care takers of the property on behalf of the Thakurbari alone and not on their own behalf.
Payment of land revenue and the electricity charges from the fund of Thakurbari will never
confer any title to the Mahanth over the said property. A care taker of the temple property is
always a care taker and is debarred from claiming his right, title and interest over the said
property.
20. Mr. J.C. Gaur, learned counsel, submits that the property in question is the property of
the Diety and not a private land as claimed by the petitioner, hence, in case of any dispute
arising out of the said property, it is the District Administration, a authority to protect the
better interest of the temple's property as well as the interest of the devotees and the
disciples. Therefore, the impugned order dated 24.07.2018 authorizing the respondent No. 6
to take over the overall control of the Sitaram Thakurbari cannot be termed as illegal and for
extraneous consideration.
21. Mr. Gaur, learned counsel, submits that it is wrong to say that though many devotees
comes to the Thakurbari for religious purposes yet by no means that property could be
construed to be a public property. Rather by all means the property of Thakurbari is a public
property and cannot be said to be a private property even if the same is mutated in the name
of the Mahanth by his mischievous activities. If the petitioner claims himself to be a Mahanth
of Thakurbari then he can be regarded as a mere custodian of the Thakurbari and by no
stretch of imagination be deemed to be the private owner of the said property.
Page No.# 13/19
22. Mr. Gaur, learned counsel submits that due to some illegal and obscene act of the
petitioner the matter was reported to the respondent No. 2 and 3 and who on receipt of such
report had issued the notice dated 09.08.2018 not only calling the petitioner but also the
respondent No. 5 together with other devotees and disciples of the Thakurbaris and as such
there is nothing wrong in issuing the notice dated 09.08.2018 to convene a meeting on
10.08.2018 in order to resolve the situation appearing in the precincts of Thakurbari and
more so when the same were volatile in nature. It is further submitted that the order
No.5/2018/ADC.NP, dated 16.08.2018 issued by the respondent No. 6, was the result of the
outcome of the meeting held on 10.08.2018 and as such there is nothing to be suspicious
about the same. The committee constituted by the respondent No. 6 vide his order dated
16.08.2018 consisting of private respondents as well as the petitioner and his supporters to
look after and manage the affairs of the Thakurbari in question directing inter-alia to hold a
general meeting on 25.08.2018 cannot be said to be an illegal committee and also cannot be
said to be that the respondent No. 6 has acted beyond his jurisdiction for extraneous
considerations. It is submitted that no order has been passed behind the back of the
petitioner.
23. Mr. J.C. Gaur, learned counsel submits that the Thakurbari is governed by the rules and
regulations framed by the Veshnav Sampradaya of the Hindu religion who had resolved to
make a Panchramanandi in the form of Niyamawali in the year 1988 for its governance on
and from the year 1988 itself and the same is well within the freedom given by the
constitution of India. The action taken by the respondent No. 6 can no way be said to be
interfering with the private affairs of the Thakurbari. The power exercised by the respondent
No. 6 is totally just and fair in view of the facts communicated against the petitioner and the
Thakurbari premises which includes the temple premises. Therefore, he submits that present
writ petitions are liiable to be dismissed.
24. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also perused
the materials on record.
25. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the Deputy Commissioner and District
Page No.# 14/19
Magistrate, Kamrup (M) District as well as the consequential order of the Addl. Deputy
Commissioner, Kamrup (M) District, whereby the Addl. Deputy Commissioner was entrusted
to the management of the Sri Sitaram Thakurbari to streamline the said Thakurbari and also
its subsequent action.
26. On consideration of the matter, it appears that the dispute is with regard to the land
and management of the Sri Sitaram Thakurbari situated at SRCB Road, Fancy Bazar,
Guwahati. The issue to be determined in this proceedings is in a very narrow compass- as to
whether the Deputy Commissioner cum District Magistrate, Kamrup (M) District has the
authority or power to interfere with the affairs of the religious denomination.
27. To appreciate, I deem it apposite to refer to the impugned order dated 24.07.2018,
passed by the Deputy Commissioner Cum District Magistrate, Kamrup (M) District and the
same is reproduced here-in-below :-
"GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE KAMRUP
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT, GUWAHATI
(CONFIDENTIAL BRANCH)
ORDER
Dated 24/7/2018.
In pursuance of the letter No.CP/CB/50/DC/2015/115, dated 23 rd July, 2018 communicated by
Commissioner of Police, Guwahati, Assam regarding dispute between two parties at Sitaram
Thakurban of SRCB Road, Fancy Bazar, Guwahati (Assam), I do hereby appoint Shri Nabadeep
Pathal, ACS, Addl. Deputy Commissioner & Addl. District Magistrate, Kamrup Metropolitan District,
Guwahati to take over the overall control and to streamline the dispute of Shri Sitaram Thakurbari
situated at SRCB Road, Fancy Bazar, Guwahati.
Shri Nabadeep Pathak, ACS, ADC & ADM, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati will take necessary
action on the following aspects with immediate effect:-
1) To examine the financial aspects of the Thakurbari,
2) Land status of the property and other assets both movable and immovable thereof,
3) Functioning of the Management Committee it in force,
4) Verification of the core activities of the Thakurbari and to suggest for taking any
required remedial measures etc.
Page No.# 15/19
Shri Nabadeep Pathak, ACS, ADC & ADM is allowed to take assistance of all concerned Line
Departments including Revenue Officials etc. for streamline the management of the Thakurbari
Further, the officer concerned shall have to report to the undersigned with the status report on
his functioning on every fortnight.
This order shall come into force with immediate effect and until further orders.
Inform all concerned accordingly.
(Virendra Mittal, IAS)
Deputy Commissioner & District Magistrate,
Kamrup Metropolitan District,
Guwahati.
Dated Guwahati the 24th July, 2018."
28. Bare perusal of the above impugned order shows that the Addl. Deputy Commissioner
cum Addl. District Magistrate, Kamrup (M) District, Guwahati has been directed to take over
the overall control and to streamline the dispute of Sri Sitaram Thakurbari situated at SRCB
Road, Fancy Bazar, Guwahati, for which the petitioner was anointed as the Mahanth. It also
reflects that the Addl. District Magistrate, Kamrup (M) District, Guwahati has been directed to
take necessary action by examining the financial aspects of the Thakurbari; land status of the
property and other assets both movable and immovable thereof; functioning of the
Management Committee if in force and verification of the core activities of the Thakurbari and
to suggest for taking any required remedial measures etc. It also authorised the Addl. District
Magistrate to take assistance of all concerned Line Departments including Revenue Officials
etc. for streamlining the management of the Thakurbari.
29. Thereafter, the Addl. Deputy Commissioner cum Addl. District Magistrate, Kamrup (M)
District, Guwahati vide order dated 16.08.2018, for smooth functioning of the affairs of the
Sri Sitaram Thakurbari and in reference to the report received from the Commissioner of
Police, Guwahati and in purported interest and betterment of the said Sri Sitaram Thakurbari,
appointed some persons including the private respondents by entrusting them the
responsibilities of maintenance of the Sri Sitaram Thakurbari on temporary basis by providing
specific responsibilities to each person and decided to have a meeting comprising of the
Page No.# 16/19
aforesaid persons, entrusting with the temporary responsibilities, tenants and other registered
members, for the welfare of the Sri Sitaram Thakurbari.
30. Admittedly, there is a dispute over the management over the Sri Sitaram Thakurbari
between the petitioner and a section of persons, who claims to be the devotees and members
of Sri Sitaram Thakurbari. The record reveals that the petitioner was anointed as Mahanth of
the Sri Sitaram Thakurbari and the plot of land measuring 15.52 Ares, covered by Dag No.
495, KP Patta No. 334 under Guwahati Revenue Circle, Guwahati, where on the said Sri
Sitaram Thakurbari is situated was mutated in the name of the petitioner, after the death of
erstwhile Mahant Pitambar Das.
31. It is admitted position that Sri Sitaram Thakurbari is religious denomination having
devotees and disciples. Under the law, they have a right to manage their own affairs and the
State would not have any authority to interfere with the right of the religious denomination
except in accordance with the law or regulation framed for the purpose. It is not discernable
from the record under what authority or power, the Deputy Commissioner -cum- District
Magistrate, Kamrup (M) District has taken over the management by entrusting it to the Addl.
Deputy Commissioner cum Addl. District Magistrate, Kamrup (M) District, as no law or
regulation has shown to have been framed by the State.
32. Article 25(2) of the Constitution of India provides that nothing shall affect the operation
of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law regulating or restricting any
economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious
practice and providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious
institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus. In the present case,
however, no law or regulation appears to have been framed by the State as the State
respondents could not place any such law or regulation.
33. The stand of the Respondents is that the impugned order has been issued to prevent
law and order situation in the Thakurbari and in exercise of power conferred under section
145 Cr.PC,. However, the impugned order reflects that the entire management is taken over
Page No.# 17/19
and entrusted to respondent No. 6 in pursuant to the letter dated 23.07.2018 communicated
by Commissioner of Police, Guwahati, regarding dispute between two parties at Sitaram
Thakurbari, which this court is not persuaded. Thus, I am of the view that for such dispute
over the said property and the management of the Thakurbari, the parties have available
remedy under the law.
34. It is settled law that the State does not have any authority or power to interfere with
the management of the religious denominations, as the religious denominations have the
right to manage their own affairs and enjoy complete autonomy in deciding their affairs.
Reference may be made to the case of Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments,
Madras vs. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamair of Sri Shirur Mutt, (Supra) wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held which is reproduced herein under:-
"22. As regards commercial activities, which are prompted by religious beliefs, we can cite
the case of Murdock v. Pennsylvania. Here also the petitioners were "Jehova's Witnesses" and
they went about from door to door in the city of Jeannette distributing literature and soliciting
people to purchase certain religious books and pamphlets, all published by the Watch Tower
Bible and Tract Society. A municipal ordinance required religious colporteurs to pay a licence
tax as a condition to the pursuit of their activities. The petitioners were convicted and fined
for violation of the ordinance. It was held that the ordinance in question was invalid under
the Federal Constitution as constituting a denial of freedom of speech, press and religion; and
it was held further that upon the facts of the case it could not be said that "Jehova's
Witnesses" were engaged in a commercial rather than in a religious venture. Here again, it
may be pointed out that a contrary view was taken only a few years before in the case of
Jones v. Opelika(1), and it was held that a city ordinance, which required that licence be
procured and taxes paid for the business of selling books and pamphlets on the streets from
house to house, was applicable to a member of a religious Organisation who was engaged in
selling the printed propaganda, pamphlets without having complied with the provisions of the
ordinance.
23. It is to be noted that both in the American as well as in the Australian Constitutions the.
right to freedom of religion has been declared in unrestricted terms with. out any limitation
whatsoever. Limitations, therefore, have been introduced by courts of law in these countries
on grounds of morality, order and social protection. An adjustment of the competing
demands of the interests of Government and constitutional liberties is always a delicate and a
difficult task and that is why we find difference of judicial opinion to such an extent in cases
decided by the American courts where questions of religious freedom were involved. Our
Constitution-makers, however, have embodied the limitations which have been evolved by
judicial pronouncements in America or Australia in the Constitution itself and the language
of articles 25 and 26 is sufficiently clear to enable us to determine without the aid of foreign
authorities as to what matters come within the purview of religion and what do not. As we
Page No.# 18/19
have already indicated, freedom of religion in our Constitution is not confined to religious
beliefs only; it extends to religious practices as well subject to the restrictions which the
Constitution itself has laid down. Under article 26(b), therefore, a religious denomination .or
organization enjoys complete autonomy in the matter of deciding as to what rites and
ceremonies are essential according to the tenets of the religion they hold and no outside
authority has any jurisdiction to interfere with their decision in such matters. Of course, the
scale of expenses to be incurred in connection with these religious observances would be a
matter of administration of property belonging to the religious denomination and can be
controlled by secular authorities in accordance with any law laid down by a competent
legislature; for it could not be the injunction, of any religion to destroy the institution and its
endowments by incurring wasteful expenditure on rites and ceremonies. It should be noticed,
however, that under article 26(d), it is the fundamental right of a religious denomination or
its representative to administer its properties in accordance with law; and the law, therefore,
must leave the right of administration to the religious denomination itself subject to such
restrictions and regulations as it might choose to impose. A law which takes away the right of
administration from the hands of a religious denomination altogether and vests it in any other
authority would amount to a violation of the right guaranteed under clause (d) of article 26."
35. As held in the above judgement, it is settled that under Article 26(b) a religious
denomination or organization enjoys complete autonomy in the matter of deciding as to what
rites and ceremonies are essential according to the tenets of the religion they hold and no
outside authority has any jurisdiction to interfere with their decision in such matters. The
scale of expenses to be incurred in connection with these religious observances would be a
matter of administration of property belonging to the religious denomination and can be
controlled by secular authorities in accordance with any law laid down by a competent
legislature; for it could not be the injunction, of any religion to destroy the institution and its
endowments by incurring wasteful expenditure on rites and ceremonies. Under Article 26(d),
it is the fundamental right of a religious denomination or its representative to administer its
properties in accordance with law and the law, therefore, must leave the right of
administration to the religious denomination itself subject to such restrictions and regulations
as it might choose to impose.
36. A law which takes away the right of administration from the hands of a religious
denomination altogether and vests it in any other authority would amount to a violation of
the right guaranteed under Article 26 of the constitution.
37. In view of the discussion made herein above, I am of the view that the Deputy
Page No.# 19/19
Commissioner cum District Magistrate, Kamrup (M) District, Guwahati has no authority to
interfere with the affairs of the Sri Sitaram Thakurbari, as the Sri Sitaram Thakurbari is a
religious denomination which has the right to manage their own affairs, except in the area of
law and order situation, which does not reflect and not discernable in the impugned order
dated 24.07.2018, passed by the Deputy Commissioner cum District Magistrate, Kamrup (M)
District, Guwahati and the subsequent order 16.08.2018, passed by the Addl. Deputy
Commissioner cum Addl. District Magistrate, Kamrup (M) District, Guwahati. Thus, the
impugned order dated 24.07.2018, passed by the Deputy Commissioner cum District
Magistrate, Kamrup (M) District, Guwahati and the subsequent order 16.08.2018, passed by
the Addl. Deputy Commissioner cum Addl. District Magistrate, Kamrup (M) District, Guwahati
are not sustainable and accordingly, same are set aside and quashed.
38. However, the Deputy Commissioner cum District Magistrate Kamrup (M) District,
Guwahati, may exercise his power and authority for maintaining law order in accordance with
law. Further, having considered that there exists a dispute between the petitioner and the
private respondent Nos.5 and 7 to 15, it is provided the parties may avail the appropriate
remedy as may be permissible under the law in respect of the right and authority of the Sri
Sitaram Thakurbari, SRCB Road, Fancy Bazar, Guwahati.
39. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are allowed to the extent indicated here in above. No
order as to costs.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
