Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 16th July, 2021
NEETA BHARDWAJ & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. M. Qayam Ud Din & Mr. Raj Kumar Yadav, Advocates for
Appellants
Through: Mr. Rohit Kishan Naagpal with Mr. Aakarshan Bhardwaj and Mr. Dipanshu Gaba, Advocates for R-
1,2,3,4 and 8.
Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, Advocate as Court Receiver.
JUDGMENT
2 WITH + CM(M) 323/2021 BISHAN SWAROOP..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sumit Thakur, Advocate.
VERSUS
MAHENDER KUMAR PANDEY..... Respondent Through: Mr. Subat Deb and Mr. Ranjeet Mishra, Advocates for R-1. Ms. Mallika Joshi, Advocate for R- 2(i) to (vii) (M: 9971600571). Mr. K.G. Chokkar, Advocate. Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, Advocate as Court Receiver. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through video conferencing. 2021:DHC:2091 FAO 36/2021 & CM(M)323/2021 Page 2 of15 CM. APPLs.20947/2021, 20948/2021, 20950/2021, 20951/2021 in CM(M) 323/2021 (for exemptions)
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Applications are disposed of. CM. APPL.20946/2021 (for condonation of delay) in CM(M)323/2021
3. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the review application. For the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing the review is condoned. Application is disposed of. CM APPL. 20904/2021 (for modification) in FAO 36/2021
4. Issue notice. Mr. Qayam Ud Din, ld. Counsel, accepts notice.
5. Let reply be filed within one weeks. Rejoinder be filed before the next date of hearing. CM APPL. 14178/2021 (for appointment of Court Receivers) in CM(M) 323/2021
6. Vide order dated 16th April 2021, read with the Corrigendum to the same, court receivers were appointed in this matter for a period from 17th April 2021 till 22nd /23rd April 2021, i.e., for the period of the Shashmahi Bari, in order to assess the offerings and donations as also the tehbazari rights. However, as recorded in the order dated 10th May 2021, due to the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, the directions which were given to the court receivers could not be given effect to.
7. In view of the same, the Respondent No. 1 was directed to place on record the complete records of their collections during the period of the said bari i.e., 24th /25th March 2021 to 22nd /23rd April, 2021, before this court.
8. A compliance affidavit to that effect has been filed by Respondent No. 1. The court shall consider the same on the next date of hearing. FAO 36/2021 & CM(M)323/2021 Page 3 of15
9. Copy of the affidavit be served on all the ld. Counsels who may file a response, if any, within one week. Rejoinder, thereto, if any, be filed before the next date. CM. APPL.20945/2021 (for review/modification of the order dated 16th April 2021) and CM. APPL. 20949/2021 (for appointment of receiver) in CM(M) 323/2021
10. These are applications moved by the Respondent No. 1 – Mahender Kumar Pandey, for review/modification of the order dated 16th April 2021, and for fresh appointment of Court receivers in the forthcoming bari commencing on the midnight of 19th and 20th July 2021.
11. Mr. Thakur, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that repeated orders have been passed in favour of his client by the trial courts, holding that the monthly bari would be an exclusive bari of his client - i.e., Mr. Bishan Swaroop.
12. Mr. Deb, ld. Counsel however expresses his apprehension that the bari would be sold and Mr. Bhardwaj is likely to conduct puja sewa and collect the offerings. Mr. Thakur refutes this submission and submits that Mr. Bishan Swaroop himself will be conducting the puja.
13. Accordingly, issue notice in these applications. Mr. Thakur, ld. counsel accepts notice.
14. Let replies be filed within one week. Rejoinders, thereto, be filed before the next date of hearing.
15. In the meantime, Ms. Manmeet Arora, Advocate (M: 9811333871) is appointed as the Local Commissioner in this matter. The Local Commissioner shall pay surprise visits to the Kalkaji Mandir at least twice during the next ten days, in order to ascertain as to who is conducting the FAO 36/2021 & CM(M)323/2021 Page 4 of15 puja sewa and who is collecting the offerings which are being put into the donation boxes and being given during the puja sewas. The Local Commissioner shall also report on any other relevant issues relating to the temple and temple complex, bearing in mind her earlier report including the cleanliness/hygiene levels at the Mandir and facilities for devotees. The report of the Local Commissioner shall be filed at least two days before the next date of hearing. The fee of the Local Commissioner is fixed at Rs. 50,000/- per visit, to be paid by the Petitioner, i.e., by Mr. Thakur’s client.
16. It is made clear that complete accounts of the offerings which are collected during the monthly bari, from the midnight of 19th /20th July 2021, shall be maintained by Mr. Thakur’s client, and the same shall be filed with the court at the end of the bari. In addition, the accounts of donations, offerings etc., till 31st July shall be placed on affidavit on 2nd August 2021. It shall also be emailed to the Court master.
17. List on 3rd August 2021. FAO 36/2021 & CM APPLs. 2914/2021, 10442/2021, 10444/2021 CM(M) 323/2021
18. These are part heard matters.
19. Mr. Qayam Ud Din, ld. counsel submits that he appears for all the Appellants in FAO 36/2021. He has filed the Vakalatnama on behalf of the Appellant Nos. 1 and 2, and the same is on record. He submits that he would be filing the Vakalatnama, for the remaining Appellants as well. Let the same be filed within one week.
20. Both these cases are related to the Kalkaji Mandir. Further to the previous orders, a list of various litigations in respect of the Kalkaji Mandir, that are pending in various courts, has been placed before this Court. The FAO 36/2021 & CM(M)323/2021 Page 5 of15 said list mentions a total of 39 cases. The ld. counsels of the parties, who are present in the hearing today, have also given details of three further cases which are stated to be pending. The said pending cases can be categorized in the following manner: Category I – Case before the Supreme Court
1 SLP (C) No. 32452/2013 Kalkaji Mandir Vikreta Sangathan- II & Ors. v. Piyush Joshi and Ors. Category II – Cases before the High Court of Delhi 2 CM(M) 1248/2018 Brij Mohan Bhardwaj and Ors. v. Vipul Gaur and Ors. 3 CM(M) 1241/2018 Brij Mohan Bhardwaj and Ors. v. Vipul Gaur and Ors. 4 CS(OS) 642/2005 Sapan Bhardwaj v. Ram Vishal Shahi and Anr. 5 RSA 109/2018 Sunny Bhardwaj v. Janak Dulari Bhardwaj and ors. Category III – Cases related to the occupation of the Dharamshala, unauthorized shopkeepers and recovery of teh-bazaari amounts, pending before various district courts 6 CS DJ 210196/2016 (ADJ, South East, Saket Courts) Sapan Bhardwaj v. Ram Vishal Shakti and Anr. 7 CS SCJ 572/2017 (SCJ, South East, Chunnu Singh v. Naveen Kumar 2021:DHC:2091 FAO 36/2021 & CM(M)323/2021 Page 6 of15 8 RCA SCJ/1/2020 Ashok Bhardwaj v. Dinkar Bhardwaj and Ors. 9 CS SCJ/ 221/2021 Saket) Sumit Kumar Sharma and ors. v. Shri Kalkaji Mandir Prabandhak Sudhar Committee and ors. 10 CS DJ/613623/2016 (SCJ, South East, Saket) Bhagwan Devi v. Ved Prakash and ors. 11 CS SCJ/ 51158/2016 (SCJ, South East, Saket) Shri Kalkaji Mandir Shamlat Thok Jogian and Brahmin v. Dhanpati 12 CS SCJ/51157/2016 (SCJ, South East, Saket) Shri Kalkaji Mandir Shamlat Thok Jogian and Brahmin v. Suman Sahi and Ors. 13 CS SCJ/ 50829/2016 (SCJ, South East, Saket) Shri Kalkaji Mandir Shamlat Thok Jogian and Brahmin v. Arun Kumar Podwal and Anr. 14 CS SCJ/50830/2016 (SCJ, South East, Saket) Shri Kalkaji Mandir Shamlat Thok Jogian and Brahmin v. Dinesh Bhardwaj 15 CS SCJ/51159/2016 (SCJ, South East, Saket) Shri Kalkaji Mandir Shamlat Thok Jogian and Brahmin v. Ajay Bhardwaj and Anr. 16 CS SCJ 51233/2016 (SCJ, South East, Saket) Shri Kalkaji Mandir Shamlat Thok Jogian and Brahmin v. Balwan Singh & Anr. 17 CS SCJ 51842/2016 (SCJ, South East, Saket) Shri Kalkaji Mandir Shamlat Thok Jogian and Brahmin v. Subhash FAO 36/2021 & CM(M)323/2021 Page 7 of15 18 CS SCJ/51381/2016 (SCJ, South East, Saket) Shri Kalkaji Mandir Shamlat Thok Jogian and Brahmin v. Satish Bhardwaj and ors. 19 CS SCJ/200/2017 Saket) Rakesh Bhardwaj v. Vinod Kumar 20 CS SCJ/ 1571/2018 (SCJ, South East, Saket) Mukhtiyar Singh v. Sunil Sahu @ Sunil Kumar 21 CS SCJ/1570/2018 Saket) Mukhtiyar Singh v. Prem Chand 22 CS SCJ/1569/2018 (SCJ, South East, Saket) Mukhtiyar Singh v. Ram Narain 23 CS SCJ/1567/2018 (SCJ, South East, Saket) Mukhtiyar Singh v. Pyare Lal 24 CS SCJ/1566/2018 (SCJ, South East, Saket) Mukhtiyar Singh v. Rajender Aggarwal 25 CS SCJ/1568/2018 (SCJ, South East, Saket) Mukhtiyar Singh v. Rajesh Grover @ Rajesh Kumar 26 CS SCJ/1733/2019 Saket) Mandir Shri Kalkaji v. Pyare Lal 27 CS SCJ 1729/2019 (SCJ, South East, Saket) Mandir Shri Kalkaji v. Jai Prakash Sharma 2021:DHC:2091 FAO 36/2021 & CM(M)323/2021 Page 8 of15 Category IV – Cases related to the baridaars on the issues of rights to conduct puja sewa, puja sewa by women, and adoption 28 CS SCJ/1437/2019 Naval Bhardwaj v. Brij Mohan Bhardwaj and ors. 29 CS SCJ/1203/2020 Narsh Chand v. Peeyush Kaushik and ors. 30 CS SCJ/579/2021 Prem Chand Bhardwaj v. Sapan Bhardwaj and ors. 31 CS SCJ/835/2020 Mukesh Bhardwaj v. Ajay Sharma 32 CS SCJ/40/2018 (SCJ, South East, Sunny Bhardwaj v. Master Anurag Bhardwaj and ors. 33 CS DJ/1010/ 2018 (ADJ, South East, Kamlesh Sharma v. Neeta Bhardwaj 34 MCA DJ/23/2018 (ADJ, South East, Rakesh Bhardwaj v. Mahant Surender Nath 35 CS SCJ/597970/2016 (SCJ, Tis Hazari Courts) Naveen Kumar v. Lakhpat Ram 36 CS SCJ/596035/2016 (SCJ, Tis Hazari Courts) Naveen Kumar v. Lakhpat Ram 2021:DHC:2091 FAO 36/2021 & CM(M)323/2021 Page 9 of15 37 CS SCJ/ 594228/2016 (SCJ, Tis Hazari Courts) Naveen Kumar v. Lakhpat Ram 38 RCA 6074/2016 (ADJ, Tis Hazari Courts) Satish Kumar v. Mahesh and ors. 39 RCA DJ/60794/2016 (ADJ, Tis Hazari Courts) Mahender Kumar Pandey v. Guganchand and ors.
40 Misc. SCJ 29894/2016 (ACJ/ARC, Tis Hazari Courts) Ganpathnath v. Gugan Chand Category V – Criminal cases in relation to the bari of the Kalkaji Mandir
41 Cr. Cases NO. 7622/2018; FIR NO. 24/2008 P.S. EOW u/s 406,420,465,468,471, 120B IPC (ASJ, South East, State v. Mahant Surender Nath 42 CT Cases NO. 614451/2016 (MM, South East, Rakesh Bhardwaj v. Mahant Surender Nath This above list, consisting of 42 cases in total across all the above mentioned five categories, is not exhaustive, as has been stated by the ld. counsels, however the same includes all the cases pertaining to the Kalkaji Mandir, FAO 36/2021 & CM(M)323/2021 Page 10 of15 which are known to the counsels appearing before this court today.
21. Insofar as the Kalkaji Mandir is itself concerned, cumulatively, there are three major issues which arise: i. The issue of renovation/re-development of the Mandir premises, and provisions of civic amenities, cleanliness, etc. in and around the temple complex for the devotees. ii. The rights, occupation and the manner of allocation and revenue collection from shopkeepers, tehbazari holders and dharmshalas. iii. The legal issues arising qua the baridars and the puja sewa rights, inter se amongst the various groups, as also the rights of women to conduct puja sewa.
22. A perusal of the orders passed by the Supreme Court in SLP (C)NO. 32452/2013, titled Kalkaji Mandir Vikreta Sangathan-II & Ors. v. Piyush Joshi and Ors., shows that in the said SLP, various issues were considered by the Supreme Court, including the issue relating to the cleanliness and redevelopment of the Kalkaji Temple. Various directions have also been passed by the Supreme Court in the said case from time to time. However, a perusal of the reports of the Local Commissioner and the Receivers in FAO 36/2021, clearly shows that the current condition, in relation to cleanliness, sanitation and infrastructure of the temple and the temple complex is completely unsatisfactory and devotees who are visiting the temple are put to great inconvenience. Cleanliness of the temple, as also the provision of civic amenities for devotees is a major concern.
23. Devotees who visit the temple are lakhs in numbers during the festive season and at least thousands in number on a daily basis. All ld. Counsels, FAO 36/2021 & CM(M)323/2021 Page 11 of15 who are appearing for some of the baridars before this Court today, on a query from the Court, agree that the temple complex needs to be redeveloped and cleanliness etc. should be maintained and civic amenities ought to be provided for the devotees, who visit the temple. They further submit that they are willing to cooperate in this regard.
24. Moreover, the fact that the matters related to the Kalkaji Mandir are spread across various Courts and various judicial officers appears to also have led to a huge delay in the adjudication of the issues involved that have been raised.
25. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that all the baridars ought to be represented before this court in order to pass effective orders in these matters.
26. Accordingly, at this stage, in order to pass effective orders as also to avoid multiplicity in proceedings and contradictory orders/judgements on issues concerning the Kalkaji mandir, the following directions are issued: i) All the counsels appearing in the following matters, relating to Category IV i.e., concerning the rights of puja sewa of the baridars as also the rights of women to conduct puja sewa, would be issued notices through the respective District Judges for appearance before this Court on the next date, i.e., 3rd August 2021: 28 CS SCJ/1437/2019 (SCJ, South East, Saket Courts) Naval Bhardwaj v. Brij Mohan Bhardwaj and ors. 29 CS SCJ/1203/2020 (SCJ, South East, Saket Narsh Chand v. Peeyush Kaushik and ors. FAO 36/2021 & CM(M)323/2021 Page 12 of15 Courts) 30 CS SCJ/579/2021 Prem Chand Bhardwaj v. Sapan Bhardwaj and ors. 31 CS SCJ/835/2020 Mukesh Bhardwaj v. Ajay Sharma 32 CS SCJ/40/2018 Sunny Bhardwaj v. Master Anurag Bhardwaj and ors. 33 CS DJ/1010/ 2018 (ADJ, South East, Saket Courts) Kamlesh Sharma v. Neeta Bhardwaj 34 MCA DJ/23/2018 (ADJ, South East, Saket Courts) Rakesh Bhardwaj v. Mahant Surender Nath 35 CS SCJ/597970/2016 (SCJ, Tis Hazari Courts) Naveen Kumar v. Lakhpat Ram 36 CS SCJ/596035/2016 (SCJ, Tis Hazari Courts) 37 CS SCJ/ 594228/2016 (SCJ, Tis Hazari Courts) 38 RCA 6074/2016 (ADJ, Tis Hazari Courts) Satish Kumar v. Mahesh and ors. 39 RCA DJ/60794/2016 (ADJ, Tis Hazari Courts) Mahender Kumar Pandey v. Guganchand and ors.
40 Misc. SCJ 29894/2016 (ACJ/ARC, Tis Hazari Courts) Ganpathnath v. Gugan Chand 2021:DHC:2091 FAO 36/2021 & CM(M)323/2021 Page 13 of15 copy of this order. The registry to put up a service report after obtaining the same from the concerned District judges before this court at least 3 days before the next date of hearing. iii) The District Judges of the respective courts shall send the electronic record of the matters relating to Category IV, as listed above, to the Registry of this Court, for them to be tagged along with these two petitions. iv) All the parties and ld. counsels appearing in the matter today are directed to place on record, a list, to the extent possible, of all the shareholders/baridars in the following groups. (1)Thulla Jasram - Mr. Qayam Ud Din, ld. Counsel (2)Thulla Bahadur- Mr. Naagpal, ld. Counsel (3)Thulka Tansukh – Mr. Naagpal, ld. Counsel (4)Thulla Rambaksh – Mr Naagpal, ld. Counsel (5)Thulla Jogians (consists of two sub-groups): a) Thulla Kanphatta Jogi b) Thulla Garbari Jogi- a consolidated list by Mr. Thakur, Mr. Naagpal and Mr. Chokkar, ld. counsels. v) Insofar as Thulla Kanphatta Jogi is concerned, Mr. Aly Mirza, Advocate (M: 989972094[4]) be issued notice by the Registry, to place on record the details of the baridaars in the said Thulla Jogi. Mr. Naagpal ld. counsel to also inform Mr. Mirza of today’s order, in order to ensure compliance. vi) If any of the parties have any proposals in respect of the redevelopment of the Kalkaji Mandir premises and surroundings, they FAO 36/2021 & CM(M)323/2021 Page 14 of15 are permitted to file the same. vii) The Petitioners in CM(M) 323/2021 are also directed to serve all the Respondents with a copy of the said petition. viii)All ld. Counsels for parties may also intimate the counsels appearing in the matters set out above in Category IV, about the order passed today in order to facilitate their appearance on the next date of hearing.
27. Insofar as the remaining matters in the other categories mentioned above, which are related to shopkeepers, dharamshalas and teh bazari etc., are concerned, the District Judges of the respective Districts at Tis Hazari and Saket court complexes, shall put up a report indicating the specific courts where the matters falling in Category III are pending.
28. The Registry is also directed to put up the latest memo of parties in both these cases in Volume- I of the respective files, for the court’s convenience. Further, parties are permitted to file any pleadings and/or documents which they wish to rely upon during the course of submissions.
29. Insofar as FAO 36/2021 is specifically concerned, Mr. Naagpal, ld. Counsel, submits that he wishes to file a reply to the affidavit filed by Mr. Sanjay Bharadwaj. The same may be filed within one week.
30. Finally, the Registry is directed to put up a report as to the total money which has been deposited by the Receivers in FAO 36/2021, expenses incurred and the amount that is currently lying in the account concerned.
31. List these petitions along with all pending applications for further hearing on 3rd August 2021. FAO 36/2021 & CM(M)323/2021 Page 15 of15
32. Copy of this order be sent to the Local Commissioner, as also the District Judges of the Saket Courts (South East District) and the Tis Hazari Courts (Central District), by the worthy Registrar General. The digitally signed copy of this order, duly uploaded on the official website of the Delhi High Court, www.delhihighcourt.nic.in, shall be treated as the certified copy of the order for the purpose of ensuring compliance. No physical copy of orders shall be insisted by any authority/entity or litigant.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE JULY 16, 2021 MR/Dk/Rahul/Ak