Prescribed Gram Sabha authorisation and pending civil proceedings limit writ directions affecting disputed temple possession and management claims.

Proceedings on behalf of a Gram Sabha must be instituted through the prescribed resolution-based process; a petition by the Gram Pradhan without such authority cannot be treated as a Gram Sabha proceeding. Directions affecting possession of temple premises should account for pending civil litigation, subsisting status-quo orders, and the limits on parallel administrative proceedings. The notes identify the pending civil suit as the appropriate forum for adjudicating competing management and possession claims, with the Gram Sabha impleaded and status quo maintained pending adjudication.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court could direct implementation of the administrative order concerning possession of temple premises without addressing the subsisting civil-court order and the pending civil suit; (ii) Whether a writ petition concerning Gram Sabha property could be maintained at the instance of the Gram Pradhan without a Gram Sabha resolution.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court could direct implementation of the administrative order concerning possession of temple premises without addressing the subsisting civil-court order and the pending civil suit.

Analysis: The High Court was specifically apprised of the appellate civil-court order requiring the parties to maintain status quo and of the report recording that proceedings under Section 145 could not proceed because the civil dispute was pending. Its failure to meaningfully refer to these material matters while directing compliance with the earlier administrative order rendered its approach untenable.

Conclusion: The direction affecting possession during the pendency of the civil suit was unsustainable. This issue is decided in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether a writ petition concerning Gram Sabha property could be maintained at the instance of the Gram Pradhan without a Gram Sabha resolution.

Analysis: Where proceedings on behalf of the Gram Sabha are required to be instituted pursuant to its resolution, that prescribed mode is mandatory. A petition by the Gram Pradhan without such resolution could not be maintained as a Gram Sabha proceeding; if treated as an individual public-interest proceeding, its entertainability in a private civil dispute required consideration.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not tenable as a proceeding on behalf of the Gram Sabha without a Gram Sabha resolution. This issue is decided in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The competing claims over management and possession must be adjudicated effectively in the pending civil suit, with the Gram Sabha impleaded and the existing status-quo arrangement continuing until that adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute or governing procedure prescribes that a legal proceeding on behalf of a public body be instituted in a particular manner, that manner alone must be followed; further, orders affecting possession cannot disregard material subsisting civil proceedings and protective civil-court orders.

---