Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: -27th May, 2024.
NEETA BHARDWAJ & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through:
Through:
Signing Date:05.06.2024 18:47
Appearances:
Mr. Arun Birbal & Mr. Varun Gupta, Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advocates for DDA.
(M: 9810029802)
Mr. R. K. Bhardwaj and Mr. Neeraj Bhardwaj & Mr. Rahul Bhardwaj, Advs.
(M- 9350271061)
Mr. Akarshan Bhardwaj, Advocate.
Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi (standing Counsel)
Ms. Samapika Biswal and Mr. Aman Kumar Yadav, Advocates (M:
9406951592).
Mr. Kaoliangpou Kamei, Adv. Mr. Ashok Kumar Bahl and Mr. Rajiv Kumar Thakur, Advocates along
Mr Anuj Chaturvedi, and Mrs Shreya Manjari Advs. (M: 9431643312).
Mr. Rishabh Kapur, Adv. (M: 7042181838)
Mr. Kush Bhardwaj, Adv. (M:9891074686)
Mr. Udit Malik, Addl. Standing Counsel
Mr Rishikesh Kr (ASC-GNCTD)
Sudhir, Mr Sudhir Shukla, Advs. (M: 9911483629)
Ms. Sumita Hazarika and Mr. Anjani Kumar Mishra, Advs. (M: 9213145580)
Mr. Tanay Hari Lal, Advocate.
Mr. Sarvesh Bhardwaj, Advocate.
Mr. Lakshay Bhardwaj, Mr. Kamal Kumar, Mr. Aashish Bhardwaj & Mr. Satish Pandey, Advocates.
Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, Mr. Deepak Raj, Ms. Tripti Juyal, Advocates.
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. Background
2. The subject matter of these disputes is the Mandir, Shri Kalkaji – a Mandir of historical significance, located in South Delhi. The Mandir’s deity is believed to be the Hindu Goddess – Maa Kaali, who is also referred to as Kaalika. As per legend, the name of the Mandir derives itself from the name of the self-manifested deity Maa Kaali. The Mandir has been historically run by various persons belonging to one of two groups, namely the Thok Brahmins and Thok Jogians. Disputes between the members of these groups have engaged the Courts and the authorities for more than 150 years. In the inter se disputes amongst these groups, several issues have been raised from time to time. At the time in 2021 when this Court came to be seized of the disputes, there were more than 70 cases which were pending before Courts in Delhi, relating to various disputes concerning the Mandir.
3. The Court took note of the numerous proceedings related to the Mandir and emphasized the need for a streamlined resolution process to avoid judicial delays. Subsequently, these proceedings were consolidated by this Court, exercising powers of transfer under Sections 24 and 25 of CPC. Accordingly, all the suits were consolidated and the proceedings were continued before this Court. The various proceedings include -
(i) Civil suits raising issues relating to baaris, auctioning of baaris, right to realise the offerings and donations collected in the Mandir, as also claims to tehbazari rights, adoption, women’s rights to conduct puja sewa, etc.;
(ii) Writ Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arising from the proceedings which were pending before the Trial Courts;
(iii) Appeals from Trial Court orders;
4. On 1st February, 2021, in FAO 36/2020 titled Neeta Bharadwaj & Ors. v. Kamlesh Sharma & Ors., a Local Commissioner (LC) was appointed to investigate the Mandir’s management, including who conducts puja, who controls the donation boxes, and the financial accounts of the Mandir, etc. The LC’s report revealed significant mismanagement, including the commercial exploitation of puja rights, unauthorized control of donation boxes by a few individuals, lack of basic facilities for devotees, and unauthorized constructions within the Mandir premises.
5. On 5th February 2021, the Court appointed two Court Receivers to oversee the Mandir’s operations, lock donation boxes, and ensure proper accounting of donations. The Receivers’ report also highlighted the dismal state of cleanliness and the lack of basic civic amenities in the Mandir. The said order dated 5th February, 2021 was upheld by the Supreme Court when challenged in SLP(C) Nos. 3017-3018/2021. Additional orders were passed in these matters by this Court to address cleanliness, maintenance, and the provision of civic amenities.
6. This Court also appointed a Local Commissioner vide order dated 16th July, 2021 to pay surprise visit to ascertain the situation at the Mandir. The said order of 16th July, 2021 also recorded that all Baaridars appearing agreed that the Mandir complex needed to be re-developed, cleanliness ought to be maintained and civic amenities ought to be provided for the devotees, who visit the Mandir. The said need for redevelopment of the Mandir for cleanliness was also confirmed by the Mahant – Shri Surendra Nath Avdhoot, as stated in his affidavit dated 1st September, 2021.
7. This Court, vide orders dated, 10th May, 2021, 16th July, 2021 as also 3rd August, 2021 had also directed parties appearing to place on record proposals in respect of maintaining cleanliness, providing civic amenities, redevelopment, and renovation at the Mandir premises. This Court, vide orders dated 17th August 2021 and 8th September 2021 also sought reports from civic agencies like the Delhi Jal Board and the South Delhi Municipal Corporation on the state of affairs in the Mandir premises. Further, submissions were heard in respect of these issues from time to time, on behalf of various parties appearing before this Court in these cases. Considering that the Court had spent significant judicial resource on these matters, they were retained as part heard matters pending before this Court.
8. After consolidating the proceedings and pursuant to detailed hearings in these matters, all stakeholders acknowledged the need for redevelopment of the Mandir premises. The court then recognised a need for a committee to oversee the work of maintenance, upkeep and re-development of the Kalkaji Mandir. The Court noted that the Baaridars were unable to effectively manage and secure the Mandir premises, necessitating urgent measures to preserve its spiritual sanctity and prevent its commercialization. Accordingly, the Court appointed an independent Administrator to oversee the functioning of the Mandir premises. Appointment of Administrator
9. Vide order dated 27th September, 2021, this Court appointed an independent Administrator to oversee various functions in relation to the Kalkaji Mandir and its complex. Initially, the parties were given an opportunity to suggest/ nominate one member each from their respective groups to form the committee for overlooking the maintenance of the Mandir, however, the same could not be finalised due to inter se disputes between the parties themselves. Accordingly, after parties agreed that there was a need for an independent administrator, appointment of Justice J.R. Midha (Retd.) as the Administrator was made. The relevant extracts of the said order are set out below:
Independent Administrator is required to be appointed by this Court for performing various functions in relation to the Mandir and its complex. Accordingly, Justice (Retd.) Mr. J.R Midha, is appointed as the Administrator of the Shri Kalkaji Mandir, Delhi. The mandate of the Administrator shall be to take all necessary steps inter alia, as set out herein below, in the interest of devotees, pilgrims, baridaars, in order to ensure their safety and security, as also to preserve the integrity and sanctity of the deity and the Mandir, which is of utmost historical importance to the people of Delhi. The ld. Administrator shall take all steps needed in light of the facts recorded above for the effective and safe functioning of the Mandir.”
10. Pursuant to the appointment, as directed by the Court, reports were filed by the ld. Administrator from time to time. The various works, which were being undertaken by him, since his appointment were:- (a) Day to day management; (b) Coordination with the civic agencies;
(c) Cleanliness in the Mandir;
(d) Toilet facility;
(e) Drinking water facility and maintenance of sewage system; (f) Medical Centre; (g) Safety and security of the Mandir premises; (h) Removal of unauthorized shops, vendors and encroachments and erection of boundary walls etc.,
11. One of the most important tasks being carried out by the ld. Administrator, in the overall interest of the devotees who visit the Mandir in lakh of numbers was, the demarcation and redevelopment of the Mandir premises. The redevelopment was also being supervised by the ld. Administrator, which was being undertaken with the consent of the Baaridars and the Mahant, who were appearing before the Court and also attending meetings with the ld. Administrator. Orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India:
12. The appointment of the Administrator was challenged by some stakeholders, but has not been interfered with by the Supreme Court. In fact one of the SLPs was dismissed and the Supreme Court directed the parties to approach the ld. Administrator for their grievances. The orders passed in the various SLPs are extracted hereunder: i) Vide order dated 25th March, 2022 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) Diary No.9073/2022 titled Nathi Ram Bhardwaj & Ors. v. Neeta Bhardwaj & Ors., the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the Petitioners are granted with the liberty to approach the Administrator regarding their grievances. The said order reads as under: “ 1.Permission to file the Special Leave Petitions granted.
2. We are not inclined to entertain the Special Leave Petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution. The Special Leave Petitions are accordingly dismissed.
3. We grant liberty to the petitioners to move the Administrator appointed by the High Court with their grievances. It would be open to the Administrator to place a report before the High Court for suitable directions. However, maintenance of the temple and its surroundings in a dignified manner in the interests of the devotees must be of paramount importance.
4. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.”
(ii) SLP (C) 011140-011141/2022 titled Ram Swarath
Singh & Ors. v. Neeta Bhardwaj & Ors., was filed by the occupants of the Saligram Kayastha Dharamshala. In the said SLP, the following order dated 27th June, 2022 was passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterating that the Petitioners can approach with their grievances relating to alternative spaces for rehabilitation: “Heard learned counsel for the parties. We are not inclined to entertain the Special Leave Petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution. The same are accordingly, dismissed. We however, grant liberty to the petitioners to approach the ld. Administrator appointed by the High Court with their grievances including allotment of alternative spaces for rehabilitation. We have no reason to doubt that the Administrator shall examine such claims in accordance with law and policy. If the petitioners file an undertaking before the Administrator to hand-over peaceful vacant possession, they shall be permitted to retain possession for a period of two weeks. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.”
(iii) SLP (C) 013726-013728/2022 titled Vichiter
Bhardwaj v. Neeta Bhardwaj and Ors., wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, vide order dated 5th August, 2022, observed as under:
iv) In LPA No.172/2022 titled Vinayak Bhardwaj v. Neeta Bhardwaj, the ld. Division Bench of this Court has also affirmed this position by stating that a hearing be also conducted before the ld. Administrator. The operative portion of the said order dated 29th March, 2022 passed by the ld. Division Bench reads as under:
Administrator to raise his concern. The learned Administrator is thus requested to give personal hearing to the applicant on 31st March, 2022, when the appellant/ applicant will be at liberty to give written representation along with necessary documents, if so desires. The learned Administrator on hearing the appellant/ applicant will submit a report to the learned Single Judge so that suitable directions if necessary are issued by the learned Single Judge.” Redevelopment and Demarcation
13. This Court, issued directions for taking various steps towards the redevelopment of the Kalkaji Mandir, which was in a complete state of disarray. Initially, as noted above, Local Commissioners had been appointed by this Court which revealed an alarming situation at the Mandir such as: • Auctioning of Baaris for conducting puja sewas; • Non-maintenance of cleanliness in the Mandir; • Non-availability of basic drinking water for devotees; • Lack of proper toilet facilities in the Mandir; • Unauthorised shopkeepers and tehbazari holders were operating in the Mandir, without paying any license fee; • Unauthorised persons were conducting their own commercial renting of Dharamshalas; • Dharamshalas were in a dilapidated condition and were unsafe for being occupied; • No proper system available for collection of offerings and use of the same for the upkeep of the Mandir; • During festive times like special occasions - Navratras there was total disarray as there was no proper queuing space or facility for the devotees;
14. On 27th September, 2021, pursuant to a detailed hearing in the proceedings, this Court acknowledged the need for redevelopment of the Mandir for the purpose of maintenance, cleanliness and orderliness of the premises. Accordingly, vide the same judgment dated 27th September, 2021, along with the independent Administrator, this Court also appointed an Architect - Mr. Goonmeet Singh Chauhan for the purpose of assessing the Mandir premises and submitting a plan for the redevelopment of the Mandir. The relevant paragraphs of the said order are set out below:
the baridaars, as also the various re-developments plans, which have been filed and record and explained above.
114. The said report/plan shall be submitted by the Architect, to this Court, within a period of two months from today.
115. While preparing the re-development plan, the Architect shall bear in mind, the norms for such redevelopment and seek the inputs of the approving agencies for the SDMC/DDA. The officials of these agencies shall cooperate with the Architect in this exercise.”
15. Subsequently, upon the agreement of all the Baaridars, an additional Architect proposed by the Baaridars and pujaris i.e., - Ms. Himanshi Kaushik from M/S Earthgrove LLP was also taken on board. Eventually the redevelopment plan of the Mandir was finalized. The demarcation of the land was also done for the purposes of safeguarding the Mandir premises from unauthorized encroachments and constructions. The redevelopment was also approved by the Supreme Court in the following orders: i) Vide order dated 25th March, 2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) Diary No.9073/2022 titled Nathi Ram Bhardwaj & Ors. v. Neeta Bhardwaj & Ors., the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
3. We grant liberty to the petitioners to move the Administrator appointed by the High Court with their grievances. It would be open to the Administrator to place a report before the High Court for suitable directions. However, maintenance of the temple and its surroundings in a dignified manner in the interests of the devotees must be of paramount importance.
4. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.”
(ii) SLP (C) Nos.010688-010689/2022 titled Nathi
Ram Bhardwaj & Ors. v. Neeta Bhardwaj & Ors. The 17 Petitioners in these SLPs are pujaris who conduct puja sewa at the Kalkaji Mandir. In this SLP, the following order was passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, on 13th June, 2022: “Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the material available on record. Application seeking permission to file the Special Leave Petitions is allowed. Applications seeking exemption from filing the certified copy of the impugned orders as also for seeking exemption from filing the official translation of the Annexure are allowed. Issue notice to the respondents Dasti service, in addition, is permitted. In the meanwhile, there shall be no impediment for carrying out the redevelopment as directed by High Court of Delhi through the orders impugned herein but such re-development shall be without dispossessing the petitioners from the premises wherein they are stated to be residing at present. Tag this Special Leave Petitions along with Special Leave Petitions(Civil) Nos. 32452- 32453 of 2013.”
(iii) SLP (C) 011140-011141/2022 titled Ram Swarath
Singh & Ors. v. Neeta Bhardwaj & Ors., was filed by the occupants of the Saligram Kayastha Dharamshala. In the said SLP, the following order dated 27th June, 2022 was passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court: “Heard learned counsel for the parties. We are not inclined to entertain the Special Constitution. The same are accordingly, dismissed. We however, grant liberty to the petitioners to approach the ld. Administrator appointed by the High Court with their grievances including allotment of alternative spaces for rehabilitation. We have no reason to doubt that the Administrator shall examine such claims in accordance with law and policy. If the petitioners file an undertaking before the Administrator to hand-over peaceful vacant possession, they shall be permitted to retain possession for a period of two weeks. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.”
(iv) SLP (C) 013726-013728/2022 titled Vichiter
Bhardwaj v. Neeta Bhardwaj and Ors., wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, vide order dated 5th August, 2022, observed as under: “2. Since the grievance of the petitioner is that he was not a party to the proceedings before the High Court, we grant liberty to the petitioner to move the High Court or, as the case may be, the Administrator with specific grievance, which shall be considered in accordance with law.
3. Subject to the grant of aforesaid liberty, the Special Leave Petitions are dismissed.
4. Liberty is also granted to the petitioner to move this Court afresh, including on the grounds which are sought to be raised in the present proceedings. v) In LPA No.172/2022 titled Vinayak Bhardwaj v. Neeta Bhardwaj, the ld. Division Bench has also affirmed this position. The operative portion of the said order dated 29th March, 2022 passed by the ld. Division Bench reads as under: “11. In view of the fact that two important facts are undisputed in this appeal, firstly, ownership rights in the property and secondly, that the redevelopment of the Kalkaji Mandir is essential which is not disputed by any of the parties, it would be appropriate to give fair chance to the appellant/ applicant to appear before the learned Administrator to raise his concern. The learned Administrator is thus requested to give personal hearing to the applicant on 31st March, 2022, when the appellant/ applicant will be at liberty to give written representation along with necessary documents, if so desires. The learned Administrator on hearing the appellant/ applicant will submit a report to the learned Single Judge so that suitable directions if necessary are issued by the learned Single Judge.””
16. A perusal of all the above orders would show that the Supreme Court has positively recognized the need for the redevelopment of the Mandir, in the larger interest of the devotees, which was not disputed by the parties also. Even the ld. Administrator’s appointment has been repeatedly recognized and upheld.
17. Since the appointment of the ld. Administrator and the Architect, various steps were taken towards streamlining of the functioning and management of the Shri Kalkaji Mandir, including its redevelopment. Several orders were passed by this Court. The broad steps taken by the Court inter alia, include:
(i) Eviction of the unauthorized occupants and removal of encroachments from the Mandir premises and creation of temporary shops;
(ii) Preparation of a master plan for the redeveloped Shri Kalkaji
(iii) Erection of boundary wall which has been partially completed subject to demarcation procedure;
(iv) Steps towards the demarcation of the Kalkaji Mandir premises in coordination with the concerned authorities;
(v) Provision of basic civic amenities such as potable drinking water, cleaning of toilets etc., to the devotees in the Kalkaji Mandir;
(vi) Proper allotment of kiosks and vendors for selling samagri and other articles and deposit of tehbazari amounts in the fund for redevelopment, maintained with the worthy Registrar General, Delhi High Court;
(vii) Directions to Baaridars to deposit a monthly amount for the purpose of management and administration of the Mandir. Part of the said amount is also being used for defraying of expenses for redevelopment;
(viii) Directions to DUSIB allocation of alternate spaces for jhuggi dwellers and repair and maintenance of sewage systems by Delhi Jal Board as also provision of temporary electricity connection by BSES;
(ix) Setting up of shops for the purpose of Navratras;
(x) Systematic distribution of prasad in the Shri Kalkaji Mandir, etc.
18. A final redevelopment plan was presented to the Court on 22nd December, 2023. However, the same was objected to by the ld. Counsel appearing for Mahant Surender Nath on the basis of existing dispute of ownership of the land. Further objections were raised in respect of jurisdiction of this Court with regard to the redevelopment of the Mandir.
19. The said submissions/ objections were denied and countered by the ld. Counsels appearing for the Baaridars and pujaris by stating that no particular individual can claim ownership rights in the land in which Shri Kalkaji Mandir is situated.
20. Further, in respect of the said objection, ld. Counsel on behalf of the ld. Administrator pointed out that in the 14th report filed by the ld. Administrator, the minutes of the meetings dated 1st December, 2023 were filed in which the Mahant was stated to be present and he stated that he had no objection to the redevelopment of the Shri Kalkaji Mandir, however his Mahant Parisar should be left out of the redevelopment. The relevant part of the said minutes of the meeting are as under: “At the outset, the Mahant raised an objection stating that the Mahant Parisar has been wiped out from the Master Plan in both the previous version as well as the revised version, The Mahant stated that he has no objection to the redevelopment of the Mandir, however his Mahant Parisar should be left out of the redevelopment. The Ld. Architect clarified that the Mahant Parisar has only been marked as Future Development' in the present Master Plan, as it is subject to the demarcation of the Mandir, and does not form part of the redevelopment of the Mandir and has been left out. The Ld. Architect as well as Mr. Vipul Gaur, pujari further clarified that only 10-20% of the adjacent area around the Mahant Parisar shall be utilized for the purpose of the redevelopment.”
21. After detailed submissions by the parties, it was observed that the redevelopment plan does not in any manner take away any rights vested in the land. The redevelopment plan before this Court was merely to provide amenities and facilities to the devotees and making the Shri. Kalkaji Mandir more accessible to the devotees as also for proper landscaping and beautification. Accordingly, the redevelopment plan for the Mandir was finalised vide order dated 22nd December, 2023. In the said order, the Court had laid out a detailed plan in view of the suggestions, plans and sketches etc. shown to the Court. Ld. Counsels on behalf of ld. Administrator, the Consultants, the Baaridars and all other stakeholders were shown the said plan and thereafter the same was approved by this Court. Some of the proposed images of the Mandir are set out below:
22. Vide the same order dated 22nd December, 2023, the Court has directed as under:
any approval is required from the Ridge Management Board, Delhi.
34. Let a report in this regard be placed before the Court on 12th January, 2024. The redevelopment plan shall also be forwarded to the Department of Delhi Fire Services at the appropriate stage.”
23. Recently, a SLP was filed challenging the abovementioned order dated 22nd December 2023 passed by this Court, by which the redevelopment office was directed to be set up and the plans were directed to be finalised for the purposes of obtaining approval. In SLP (C) No.6344-6346/2024, which was filed by the Mahant Surender Nath on 18th March, 2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed as under:
Recent developments:
24. In accordance with the Supreme Court orders as also this Court’s orders, as mentioned above, the ld. Administrator has been filing reports on the status of functioning of the Mandir. A detailed report (hereinafter, ‘Administrator’s report’) has been filed on behalf of the ld. Administrator – being Report no.17, which reveals a situation wherein, in effect, the Mahant and some of the Baaridars are now refusing to pay any amounts in terms of the previous orders passed by this Court. The same is based on the assertion that no further amounts are liable to be paid to the ld. Administrator and the ld. Administrator cannot function any more in Kalkaji mandir, in view of the status quo order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 18th March,
2024. The relevant paragraph of the said report is extracted as under:
25. Mahant Mr. Surender Nath, who had his Baari between 19th April, 2024 and 18th May, 2024, has made only two payments which are in respect of the salaries to existing pujaris, house-keeping staff and Bhawan Bill (electricity) and has not made subsequent payments towards remuneration to ld. Administrator, salaries of office staff, security guards, house-keeping staff etc.
26. According to the ld. Administrator, all the initial services, which were being provided in the Mandir i.e., essential services such as security, housekeeping for maintaining cleanliness and the office staff, salaries for these service providers are not being paid. As per the ld. Administrator’s Report even for demolition of chabutra, the outstanding amounts have not been paid to the Contractor. The relevant paragraph of the said report is extracted as under:
payment of their salaries. The pujaris present before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 02.04.2024 are well aware of the import and clarification of the order dated 18.03.2024 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, but have deliberately taken and spread a false/contrary stand to create a hostile atmosphere due to which it has become impossible for the undersigned to discharge administrative functions in terms of the order dated 27.09.2021.
18. The undersigned has therefore suspended all the housekeeping, security and other staff, as well as all administrative functions, with effect from 20.05.2024, till further orders of this Hon’ble Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the meanwhile, the Delhi Police has been requested to provide necessary personnel for maintaining the safety and security of the devotees in the Mandir; as well as to ensure security of the office of the undersigned at the Mandir. Copy of the order dated 20.05.2024 issued by the undersigned is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure G.”
27. Currently the ld. Administrator has been ousted by non-payment and the day-to-day administration of the Mandir is now no longer being conducted by the ld. Administrator. All services have been suspended by the Ld. Administrator. As per the ld. Administrator there has also been misappropriation of jewellery and ornaments belonging to the devotees. Further, donations made by devotees are stated to have been appropriated by the concerned Baaridars even during the navratra period. The relevant paragraph of the said report is extracted as under:
the Goddess shall not be sold or disposed of in any manner whatsoever by any person including the baridaars. The baridaars are directed to take handover of the list of the ornaments/ jewelry permanently adorning the Goddess prepared by the previous baridaars and prepare a similar list along with the said ornaments/ jewelry and any other incremental jewelry/ ornaments to the next set of baridaars in the next bari, who shall maintain the record of the ornaments/ jewelry of the Goddess.
34. During the bari from 20.03.2024 to 18.04.2024 (Navratra bari), a devotee Satpal Gupta donated one (1) silver chatra of 5 kg weight for the purpose of adorning the Goddess permanently, which was agreed to by the baridaars. One of the families of the Navratra baridaars in the bari had also donated two (2) gold lat for the purpose of adorning the Goddess permanently. The undersigned directed the baridaars to retain the 5 kg silver chatra and two lat locket in the permanent jewellery of the Goddess.
35. In the meeting dated 19.04.2024, the undersigned had directed the baridaars to prepare the list of the ornaments/ jewellery permanently adorning the Goddess along with the incremental jewellery/ ornaments in the bari viz. the silver chatra and the gold lat and hand over the same to the next baridaars in the next bari, who shall maintain the record of the ornaments/ jewellery of the Goddess. Copy of the said list was also directed to be provided to the office. The minutes of meeting dated 19.04.2024 was filed with the Report No. 16 dated 25.04.2024 at Annexure N (pg. 78- 85).
36. In violation of the aforesaid direction passed by the undersigned to the baridaars, the baridaars have taken away and misappropriated the 5 kg silver chatra and the gold lat which forms part of the permanent jewellery of the Goddess.”
28. Today, Ms. Hazarika appearing for the Petitioner before the Supreme Court, submitted that the Counsel for the ld. Administrator had moved a mentioning slip before the Supreme Court on 14th May, 2024 and had sought clarification of the status quo order of 18th March, 2024, wherein no clarification was directed and therefore no payments are required to be made in terms of the previous orders of this Court. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the matters are now coming up before the Supreme Court in the second week of August 2024 and the present matters may be taken up after the said date. Status quo
29. The term ‘status quo’ clearly means – “the situation that currently exists”1 or “the existing state of things on any given date”2. The Supreme Court while discussing the meaning of ‘status quo’ in Satyabrata Biswas & Ors Vs. Kalyan Kumar Kisku & Ors, (1994) 2 SCC 266 has observed as under:
Black’s Law Dictionary, 1420 (7th ed. 1999). Wharton’s Law Lexicon, 951 (14th ed. 1949). plea of Somani Builders. Why then the Joint Receivers were directed to allow Somani Builders to occupy the premises for the purpose of carrying on business passes our comprehension? The status quo is not a status quo as on the date of inventory but the status quo as of September 15, 1988. The order of that date states unequivocally “status quo as of today”. That could only mean September 15, 1988 and there cannot be the state of affairs after five years of that order.
19. In Wharton's Law Lexicon, 14th Edn. at p. 951, status quo has been defined as meaning: “The existing state of things at any given date; e.g., Status quo ante bellum, the state of things before the war.”
20. According to Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edn. the relevant passage occurs: “The existing state of things at any given date. Status quo ante bellum, the state of things before the war. ‘Status quo’ to be preserved by a preliminary injunction is the last actual, peaceable, uncontested status which preceded the pending controversy.”
21. This Court in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. State of Bihar [1987 Supp SCC 394] stated thus: (SCC p. 398, para 5) “According to the ordinary legal connotation, the term ‘status quo’ implies the existing state of things at any given point of time.”
22. When the removal of padlock was complained of in the appeal filed by the appellants herein, strangely delivery of possession was ordered! The said order clearly betrays lack of understanding as to the scope of contempt jurisdiction and proceeds upon a total misappreciation of the facts. We are obliged to remark that both the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench had not kept themselves within the precincts of contempt jurisdiction. Instead peculiar orders have come to be passed totally alien to the issue and disregardful of the facts. The orders of the learned Single Judge and that of the Division Bench cannot stand even a moment's scrutiny. Therefore, it is idle to contend that no interference is warranted under Article
136.
23. Apart from the fact whether A.K. Ghosh had a legal authority to sublease or not it was not open to him to grant a sublease in violation of the order. It is no use contending as Mr Chidambaram, learned counsel for the respondents does, that there was a bar to such a sublease under the terms of the status quo order. It has the effect of violating the preservation of status of the property. This will all the more be so when this is done without the leave of the court to disturb the state of things as they then stood. It would amount to violation of the order. The principle contained in the maxim ‘actus curiae neminem gravabit’ has no application at all to the facts of this case when in violation of status quo order a sub-tenancy has been created. Equally, the contention that even a trespasser cannot be evicted without recourse to law is without merit, because the state of affairs in relation to property as on September 15, 1988 is what the court is concerned with. Such an order cannot be circumvented by parties with impunity and expect the court to confer its blessings. It does not matter that to the contempt proceedings Somani Builders was not a party. It cannot gain an advantage in derogation of the rights of the parties, who were litigating originally. If the right of sub-tenancy is recognised, how is status quo as of September 15, 1988 maintained? Hence, the grant of sublease is contrary to the order of status quo. Any act done in the teeth of the order of status quo is clearly illegal. All actions including the grant of sublease are clearly illegal.
30. Till very recently, the administration was functioning smoothly and even during the recent Navratras in April, the management was under the ld. Administrator and thus everything was in order. In his affidavit dated 15th February, 2024 the Mahant had taken a specific position that he has handed over the control and management of the Mandir to the ld. Administrator. Relevant extract of the said affidavit reads: “AFFIDAVIT IN COMPLIANCE OF ORDER DATED 12.02.2024 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT I, Mahant Surendra Nath Chela of Mahant Ram Nath aged about 68 years, Gaddi Nashin of Avdhoot Jogi, Dera of Avadhoot Jogi, Mandir Shri Kalkaji, resident of Mahant Parisar, Mandir Shri Kalkaji, New Delhi, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:-” Xxx xxx xxx
3. ………..That the Kalkaji temple premises including my Mahant Parisar has been given under management and control of the Ld. Administrator appointed by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 27.09.2021. After 27.09.2021 I am not authorized to take any administrative decision or to give any permission to the organisers holding program in the premises…….” The position currently being taken by the Mahant of not recognising the Ld. Administrator’s appointment, is clearly in the teeth of his own statement as extracted in the above affidavit. On 18th March 2024, when the order of status quo was passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the ld. Administrator was already looking after the day-to-day management of the Mandir as was in fact permitted by the Supreme Court, vide its order dated 25th March 2022 and other orders, extracted above. The non-payment by the Mahant and the Baaridars is contrary to the orders passed by the Supreme Court as also of this Court, which positively recognise the appointment of the ld. Administrator. Such a course of action by the Mahant and the other Baaridars without any specific order to this effect, and to decide on their own, to stop complying with the earlier orders, would prima facie constitute violation and disregard of various orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Ld. Division Bench and of this Court. In fact, in the opinion of this Court, the status quo order dated 18th March 2024, of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is also being misinterpreted to mean that the appointment of the ld. Administrator has been stayed or that the Mahant and the Baridaars can oust the Administrator in this indirect manner.
31. The ld. Administrator’s office has now been rendered dysfunctional and the Ld. Administrator is no longer able to work in the Kalkaji Mandir.
32. Considering the developments reported by the ld. Administrator as observed above, let a reply be filed by the Baaridars to the 17th report of the ld. Administrator, before the next date of hearing. Tragic incident at the Mandir on 27th /28th January 2024
33. Vide order dated 12th February, 2024, in RFA 412/2021, the Court had sought a report from the ld. Administrator and other stakeholders, in respect of the recent unfortunate Jagran incident on the intervening night of 27th and 28th January, 2024. Thereafter, this Court directed the Delhi Police to conduct an investigation and submit a detailed report stating as to who were the persons responsible for the incident that took place on the intervening night of 27th and 28th January, 2024 within the Kalkaji Mandir premises as a result of which several got injured and one woman unfortunately lost her life.
34. It has been clearly recorded in the order dated 12th March, 2024, from where it can be observed that the jagran was organized by Shri. Kalkaji Sajja Sewadar Mitr Mandal and its president/office bearers- Mr. Anuj Mittal and Mr. Satish Kumar, who were the organisers, with the permission from the Mahant- Surender Nath Avdhoot. The relevant portion of the order is as under:
incident out of which one lady aged about 55 years was declared brought dead at MAX Hospital, Saket. Later on, the deceased was identified as Teena (aged-55 yrs)w/o Ved Prakash r/o Tuglakabad Extension, Govindpuri, Delhi. xxx
6. As per the statements of witnesses recorded u/s 161 CrPC, it has been found that the incident had taken place due to the negligence of the organizers of the Jagran. The statements of singers Arjun Suri and Rahul Banjara were recorded in which they stated that they were contacted by one Satish Kumar and Anuj Mittal to perform in the said event. Later on, statement of Rajesh Khurana, the owner of Rama Tent Decorators was also recorded who stated that he was contacted by Satish Kumar and Anuj Mittal for installing the main stage and tent at the said event. He further stated that the elevated platform which had collapsed on the date of incident was installed by one Aviram Patra, the owner of ANK Innovation on the request of the organizers. It was found that the event was organized by Shri Kalkaji Sajja Sewadar Mitr Mandal (SKSSMM) and Anuj Mittal is its president. Subsequently, notices u/s 41A CrPC were served upon Anuj Mittal and Satish Kumar and both the accused persons were arrested on 30.01.2024 after interrogation and were released on bail. The invitation card for the said event was obtained from the accused person Anuj Mittal, President of SKSSMM and the same was seized. Subsequently, Sh. Aviram Patra was interrogated who stated that the said platform was installed by him on the request of the organizers Anuj Mittal and Satish Kumar and the same was made only for 20-25 people to seat there. That no chairs were put on the elevated platform. He further stated that a trial was conducted by him in which it was found that the said platform would bear the weight of approximately 50 persons and that when the incident had occurred, he was present at the said event and that more than 100 hundred persons had climbed on the platform and efforts were made to disperse the crowd from the sad platform. He had also requested Anuj Mittal and Satish Kumar to control the crowd but no heed was paid to the said request.
7. The organizers have stated that they had obtained verbal permission to use the premises for the event from Mahant of Kalkaji Mandir and on their request, Sh. Surender Nath Avdhoot through his representative Yogi Abhinav Nath had requested the DGM, BSES, Nehru Place, Delhi vide letter dated 19/12/2023 (Copy enclosed) to provide temporary electricity meter for Chowki/ Jagran purpose at Mahant Niwas Parisar from 19.12.2023 till 28.01.2024 in the name of Society Shri Kalkaji Sajja Sewadar Mitr Mandal During investigation, the details regarding installation of electricity meter for the Jagran programme was obtained from BSES in which it was found that the programme was being organised by the Shri Kalka Ji Sajja Sewadar Mitr Mandal and the accused Anuj Mittal is its President. The organizers had also decorated the Kalkaji temple main Bhawan and a table was placed near the Bhawan to collect the donations after taking permission of the Baridars. That investigation has reveled that the organizers did not seek permission for the Chowki or Jagran from the Ld. Administrator as per his office. The 51 days Chowki had commenced at the Mahant Parisar, Kalkaji Temple on 8th December, 2023 and the organizers Anuj Mittal had met the Ld. Administrator in the last week of December, 2023 for inviting him to participate in the Chowki. As such, the Ld. Administrator participated in one chowki as a devotee on 3rd Jan 24. The Ld. Administrator office has asserted that the Mahant ji never takes permission from his office for any activity in the Mahant Parisar. Rather, Ld. Administrator has to take Mahant ji's permission to use the Mahant Parisar Hall for accommodating medical team etc. during Navratras.
8. A request has been sent to obtain the certified copy of the certificate of registration of the above said society Shri Kalkaji Sajja Sewadar Mitr Mandal from the office of SDM/Sarita Vihar and the report is awaited.
9. During investigation, statement of Sh. Prem Kumar Sharma (who has printed the invitation card), Rajkumar Khanna (who has provided the sound system at the said event), Akash Dang(photographer), Veerbhan Singhal (one of the promoters) and Manish Kumar Chabbra (who has provided the clothing and decoration for the goddess) were recorded in which they all stated that they were contacted by the organizers/accused Anuj Mittal and Satish Kumar to provide for their services for the said event.
10. During the course of investigation, it has been found that Shri Kalkaji Sajja Sewadar Mitr Mandal had organized the Jagran from 27- 28/01/24. Anuj Mittal is the president of the said society. The Jagran was being held continuously from the year of 2009 onwards. This year, the permission was not granted by Police as the organisers failed to produce NOC from the fire department and Structure stability certificate from MCD and also the permission was sought to use the load speaker beyond 10 PM. However, sufficient police staff was deployed to maintain law and order situation inside Kalkaji Mandir at Mehant Parisar. One elevated platform was installed near the main stage at a height of around 12 feet for seating20/25 persons from the families of the organisers/VIP and camarmen. At about 12.30 AM, when the programme of singer B Praak started who has a huge fan following. Some of the spectators got excited who rushed and climbed on the elevated platform.
11. The organizers remained negligent in regulating the movement of people on the platform which collapsed. During the programme an uncontrolled crowd climbed on the platform which when collapsed lead to the unfortunate incident. Moreover, the function was being held without any permission.”
4. A perusal of the above status report reveals clearly that the jagran was organised by Shri. Kalkaji Sajja Sewadar Mitr Mandal and its president/office bearers Mr. Anuj Mittal and Mr. Satish Kumar who were the organisers. They were given permission by Mr. Surender Nath Avdhoot who describes himself as the Mahant of the Kalkaji Mandir. The Mahant is stated to have sent his representative Yogi Abhinav Nath for obtaining permissions from the DGM, BSES, Nehru Palace for conducting the chowki/jagran from 19th December, 2023 to 28th January, 2024 in the name of the said Sewadar Mandal. The organizers, thereafter, got the pandal and other arrangements made including installation of the electricity meter, the photography, videography etc.”
35. After having perused the status report filed by the Delhi Police in respect of the incident that took place in the Kalkaji Mandir on the intervening night of 27th /28th January,2024, the Court had made the following observations on 12th March, 2024:
6. It is clear from the ld. Administrator’s report, that the ld. Administrator has not given any permission for holding the event.
7. Further, it is submitted that the investigation is yet to be concluded with respect to the incident which took place in the jagran and as to who all are responsible for conducting the same. Thus, it is directed that the police shall continue its investigation and conclude the same expeditiously and take action against all persons who are culpable.
8. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, S.H.O. Kalkaji, who is present virtually, has assured the Court that the investigation shall be completed within four weeks and the chargesheet shall be filed. The statement is taken on record.”
36. Pursuant to the above stated order, Delhi Police has filed a chargesheet. A status report with respect to incident has been filed and the charge sheet has been annexed. The accused persons in the charge sheet are as under: i. Mr. Anuj Mittal ii. Mr. Satish Kumar iii. Mr. Narender Suri iv. Mr. Amit Kumar Dang v. Mr. Vinay Goswami vi. Mr. Atul Prakash Chaudhary.
37. The orders stated above reveal that the abovementioned persons who have been charge-sheeted were in fact permitted by the Mahant to hold the event in his Parisar and No Objection Certificates (NOCs) were also obtained through the Mahant’s representative from various authorities for conducting the event.
38. As per the above observations made by the Court, the Court directs the Delhi police to conclude the investigation with respect to the said incident and take necessary steps against all the persons culpable. The orders passed by this Court be also be taken into consideration by the concerned authorities.
39. It is seen from the above discussion that contradictory stands are being taken by the Mahant. In order to ascertain the current situation in the Mandir, Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, ld. Counsel, who was earlier appointed as the Local Commissioner, shall make a surprise visit to the mandir without notice to any of the parties to ascertain the current position in the Mandir. Let the report be filed by the ld. Local Commissioner on the following aspects: i. Cleanliness in the mandir; ii. Crowd management; iii. Availability of basic amenities such as drinking water, clean toilets, emergency medical aid etc., iv. Functioning of the Mandir; v. Conduct of puja and whether the Baaris are being auctioned or being put to commercial use; vi. Unauthorised hawking; vii. Unauthorised encroachments into the Mandir precincts; viii. Collection of Teh Bazari and by whom; ix. Any other relevant fact that is of importance from the perspective of the devotees visiting the Mandir.
40. Let the report be filed by 10th July, 2024.
41. In view of the submissions made by Ms. Hazarika, list on 30th August,
2024.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE MAY 27, 2024 dk/ks/bh/am/dn [Corrected and released on 5th June, 2024]