Neeta Bhardwaj & Ors. v. Kamlesh Sharma

5. Keeping in mind this overall condition of the Mandir, a retired High Court Judge was appointed as Administrator for effective day-to-day administration and smooth functioning of the Mandir.

6. The above order dated 27th September, 2021 was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in two SLPs, both of which were dismissed. In the first challenge, vide order dated 25th March, 2022 in SLP (C) Diary No.9073/2022 titled Nathi Ram Bhardwaj & Ors. v. Neeta Bhardwaj & Ors., the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:

7. In SLP (C) 013726-013728/2022 titled Vichiter Bhardwaj v. Neeta Bhardwaj and Ors., vide order dated 5th August, 2022, the following order was passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court:

8. Since 27th September, 2021, FAO 36/2021 is being heard along with various writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and several civil suits, which stood transferred to this Court.

9. Apart from the orders in the above SLPs, further SLPs against orders of this Court, have also been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the ld. Division Bench of the High Court, in the following orders:

(i) Order dated 29th March, 2022 in LPA No. 172/2022 titled

(ii) Order dated 13th June, 2022 in SLP (C) Nos.010688-

(iii) Order dated 27th June, 2022 in SLP (C) 011140-011141/2022

10. Today, Mr. R.K. Bhardwaj, ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant, submits that some matters related to the Kalkaji Mandir were listed before the Supreme Court on 17th October, 2022, and he requests that the matters before this Court be adjourned to a date after the next date in those matters that has been fixed before the Supreme Court. The order dated 17th October, 2022 passed in a batch of SLPs, tagged with SLP No.32452-32453/2013 titled Kalkaji Mandir Vikreta Sangathan-II & Ors. v. Piyush Joshi & Ors., reads as under: “1 Having regard to the wider canvas of the matter, we request Ms Aishwarya Bhati, Additional Solicitor General, to assist the Court as amicus curiae. For facilitating requisite assistance to Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, we also request Ms Archana Pathak Dave, counsel to assist.

2 The Registry shall supply soft copies of the paper books and other documents to Ms Aishwarya Bhati and Ms Archana Pathak Dave.

11. In addition, Ms. Shilpa Goel, ld. Counsel, also brings to the notice of this Court, the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 10th October, 2022, in SLP Diary No.26481/2022 titled Ved Prakash Bharadwaj & Ors. v. Neeta Bharadwaj & Ors., which relates to 26 pujaris occupying the dharamshalas. The said order reads as under: “1. Permission to file SLP is granted.

2. Issue notice to the respondents.

3. Dasti service, in addition, is permitted.

4. In the meanwhile, there shall be no impediment for carrying out the re-development, as directed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, but such re-development shall be without dispossessing the petitioners from the premises wherein, they are stated to be in occupation at present.”

12. This Court takes note of the above orders and submissions.

13. Today, Report No.9 dated 27th October, 2022, (hereinafter “Report No.9”) has also been filed by the ld. Administrator and certain other submissions have been made by various stakeholders pursuant to the previous orders of this Court. Report No.9 is detailed in nature and the issues raised therein, require consideration.

14. Insofar as the income tax exemption that may be permissible for donations made towards the redevelopment of the Mandir, under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the issue of TDS deductions on the payments made to or by the Court is concerned, Mr. Zoheb Hossain, ld. CGSC, submits that discussions with the ld. Administrator are underway. He seeks further time to place on record his proposal. Let the needful be done by the next date of hearing.

15. Mr. Nitin Jain. ld. Counsel, also seeks discharge from appearing on behalf of shopkeepers. Instead, Mr. Ishkaran Singh, ld. Counsel appearing for 19 shopkeepers, has filed his vakalatnama and given Mr. Nitin Jain’s NOC. Similarly, Mr. Paul Kumar Kalai, ld. counsel appearing for 46 shopkeepers submits that he shall also file his vakalatnama. Accordingly, Mr. Nitin Jain, ld. Counsel, is discharged qua the shopkeepers. Vakalatnama of Mr. Ishkaran Singh is taken on record. Let the Vakalatnama of Mr. Paul Kumar Kalai also be filed and placed on record.

16. In so far as pending payments that had to be made by the baridaars, pursuant to the previous order dated 9th September, 2022, defaulting baridaars were directed to make the requisite payments and be present in Court. In this regard, Mr. Vipin Bhardwaj submits that notice was issued to him for non-deposit of his share of baaridaari. As per Report No.9, Mr. Vipin Bhardwaj has made the said payment of Rs.23,000/- for the chait month, 2022. Similarly, Mr. YN Bharadwaj and Mr UN Bharadwaj also submit that they have made the requisite payments, as confirmed by Report No.9. Accordingly, Mr. Vipin Bhardwaj, Mr. YN Bharadwaj, and Mr. UN Bharadwaj, need not appear in person in these matters.

17. Insofar as the redevelopment of the Kalkaji Mandir is concerned, the counsels are ad idem that meetings have been held, even as of yesterday, between the architect Mr. Goonmeet Singh Chauhan, ld. Administrator, and the architect of the baaridaars along with stakeholders. In the said meetings, some consensus is being attempted on the final model of redevelopment of the Kalkaji Mandir to be placed before the Court. Report No.9 also states that the consultations are ongoing. However, Mr. R.K. Bhardwaj, ld. Counsel submits that since the entire matter is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and listed on 21st November, 2022, even the meetings for redevelopment may be postponed till that date.

18. Having regard to the above, the meetings for finalizing the redevelopment plans of the Kalkaji Mandir and further consideration and directions in these matters shall stand deferred.

19. List on 2nd December, 2022.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE OCTOBER 28, 2022/dk/ms