TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 1497X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t they have illegally usurped the power that has been historically vested in the office of Dolois. 3. The breach alleged in these contempt petitions is of the direction contained in paragraph 73 of the aforesaid judgment of this Court dated 7th July 2015, which reads thus: 73. Since the Debutter Board is occupying some part of the premises in the Temple of Sri Sri Maa Kamakhya Temple on account of interim orders of this Court, all those interim orders are now vacated. The District Administration is directed to ensure that those premises are vacated by the members or representatives of the Debutter Board at the earliest and in any case within four weeks. The premises and other properties of Sri Sri Maa Kamakhya Temple shall, if required, be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 that they will furnish whatever remaining details relating to their bank accounts and the funds available in their accounts. The undertaking was recorded without prejudice to the stand of the said Respondents that certain accounts are not connected with Kamakhya Devalaya. Further order dated 4th July 2016 passed by this Court records that the Respondent No. 5 stated that an inquiry is being held to find out all the details. This Court directed the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to file copies of the consolidated accounts, if not filed earlier, as well as copies of the entries for the relevant period in the pass books of all the bank accounts. By the Order of this Court dated 16th August 2017, the State of Assam was ordered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hout taking approval from the Deputy Commissioner, being cleverly split into amounts of Rs. 50,000/- so as to give an impression as if the order is complied with. These facts, prima facie, establish misappropriation of funds by the Board. As per the report, the office bearers did not cooperate with the enquiry officer and concealed vital information including existence of bank accounts in their names. It is then stated that a proper investigation based on lodging of criminal case would facilitate discovery of financial trail, exact extent of misappropriation, identity of co-conspirators, retrieval of relevant documents, etc. It would be in the fitness of things if the lodging of a criminal case be done immediately and a proper investigation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o 4 in terms of the directions issued in paragraph 73 of the judgment dated 7th July 2015. He submitted that the report of the inquiry officer was never questioned by the said Respondents and, therefore, in terms of the directions contained in paragraph 73, the said Respondents were under an obligation to pay the said amount to the Temple. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the subject matter of the judgment dated 7th July 2015 is not only the Kamakhya Temple but also the other subsidiary temples. He submitted that by filing an affidavit, now the Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 are seeking to contend that the judgment dated 7th July 2015 was only in respect of the main Kamakhya Temple. He pointed out that in the affidavit, the sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... about the liability of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to pay any specific amount. Paragraph 73 refers to premises and other properties of Kamakhya Temple. However, there is no finding recorded that any particular amount is payable by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to the Petitioner. 8. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner pointed out that immovable property of Kamakhya Temple, as well as other subsidiary temples has been handed over to the Petitioner in terms of the judgment dated 7th July 2015. Though there is no specific direction in paragraph 73 to pay any amount, reliance is placed by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner on the order dated 31st January 2020, which we have quoted above. It is recorded in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
