2021 (12) TMI 1497 - SC - Indian Laws

Temple property handover contempt petitions dismissed due to natural justice violations and lack of proper adjudication

The Bordeuri Samaj of Sri Sri Maa Kamakhya Versus Riju Prasad Sarma and Ors.

The SC disposed of contempt petitions regarding non-compliance with orders for handover of temple properties, movable assets, surplus cash of Rs. 11 ... Contempt petition - possession of the immovable properties not handed over to Bordeuri Samaj - various movable properties of the Temple, not handed over to the Petitioner - surplus cash amount of not less than Rupees eleven crores, which belonged to the Deity, it has not been paid - books of accounts pertaining to the Temple have not been handed over to the Petitioner - opportunity to file objections not provided - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Perusal of the order 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 includes a direction to pay money, there is no adjudication made to decide what is the extent of liability. Hence, no case made out to take action Under Article 129 of the Constitution read with the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Moreover, the contempt jurisdiction is always discretionary which should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. This is not a fit case to exercise the said jurisdiction by punishing the Respondents. However, it is always open for the Petitioner to adopt appropriate proceedings for recovery of money as mentioned in the report in accordance with law. The contempt petitions stand disposed of. Issues:1. Contempt petition invoking jurisdiction under Article 129 for breaches in a previous judgment.2. Dispute regarding management of Sri Sri Maa Kamakhya Devalaya.3. Alleged breaches of directions in the judgment dated 7th July 2015.4. Misappropriation of funds by the Debutter Board.5. Dispute over the liability of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to pay a specific amount.Analysis:1. The petitioner filed a contempt petition against Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 for breaching directions in a previous judgment related to Sri Sri Maa Kamakhya Devalaya. The petitioner, representing Bordeuri Samaj, alleged that the Debutter Board illegally usurped management powers historically vested in the Dolois. Breaches included not handing over immovable and movable properties, surplus cash, and temple accounts.2. The judgment highlighted the directions in the 2015 judgment, emphasizing the need to vacate premises occupied by the Debutter Board and return control to Bordeuri Samaj. Various grievances were raised regarding property possession and financial matters, leading to a detailed legal process involving multiple court orders and involvement of the State of Assam.3. The report by the Additional Director General of Police revealed misappropriation of funds by the Debutter Board, leading to a directive for lodging a criminal case and conducting an investigation. The petitioner sought recovery of the misappropriated amount, arguing that the Respondent Nos. were obligated to refund the temple's property. However, the respondents disputed this claim, stating that the judgment did not include a specific direction to pay any amount.4. The court considered the submissions and found no specific direction in the 2015 judgment regarding payment by the respondents. While immovable properties were handed over, the issue of fund misappropriation lacked conclusive findings. The court emphasized the discretionary nature of contempt jurisdiction and ruled that no clear case existed to punish the respondents under Article 129. The petitioner was advised to pursue appropriate legal proceedings for money recovery based on the report's findings.5. Ultimately, the contempt petitions were disposed of without punitive action against the respondents. The court stressed the need for circumspection in exercising contempt jurisdiction and advised the petitioner to pursue lawful means for recovering the allegedly misappropriated funds.