9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 1497X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Ors. v. State of Assam and Ors. (2015) 9 SCC 461. 2. The issue involved in the said judgment is in respect of Sri Sri Maa Kamakhya Devalaya. The case made out in the contempt petitions is that the Petitioner is the elected Dolois representing members of Bordeuri Samaj of Kamakhya Devalaya. It is the case of the Petitioner that the right of Bordeuri Samaj to manage religious affairs of Kamakhya Temple has been recognised from time immemorial. Bordeuri Samaj consists of members of five families and Dolois (head priest) is elected from amongst the members of the five families. It is pointed out that in the year 1998, a self-styled body in the name and style of Kamakhya Debutter Board ('Debutter Board') was formed by the Respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... movable properties of the Temple, as detailed in the representation dated 3rd August 2015, have not been handed over to the Petitioner. The third grievance is that though as per the statement of accounts submitted on behalf of Debutter Board, it was holding surplus cash amount of not less than Rupees eleven crores, which belonged to the Deity, it has not been paid. Lastly, a grievance is made that books of accounts pertaining to the Temple have not been handed over to the Petitioner. 4. Initially, notice of these petitions was issued only to the Respondent No. 5 - Deputy Commissioner. Thereafter, notice was also issued to the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 as well. In the order dated 18th April 2016 passed in these contempt petitions, this Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... port in a sealed cover within a period of six weeks from today. Dr. Dhavan also points out that certain amounts have been disbursed from this sum after the 07.07.2015 judgment of this Court. The amount so disbursed may also form the subject matter of this enquiry. List on Monday, the 13th January, 2020. (Underline supplied) On 31st January 2020, this Court passed further order, which reads thus: We have perused the report of the Additional Director General of Police, CID, Assam dated 08.01.2020. The report reveals that a sum of Rs. 7,62,03,498/- has been withdrawn in cash by the Kamakhya Debutter Board from 2 accounts, one in UCO Bank and one in United Bank of India. These withdrawals have taken place since 21.11.2011 in violation o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which records that there is a misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 7,62,03,498/-. It is recorded in the said report that the office bearers of Debutter Board did not cooperate for the inquiry. He submitted that the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 never raised any objection to the said report. Therefore, by accepting the said report, by the order dated 31st January 2020, this Court directed that a criminal case be lodged in connection with the misappropriation and a proper investigation be conducted within a period of three months. He submitted that the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 accepted the correctness of the report which recorded that there was a misappropriation of the sum of Rs. 7,62,03,498/-. The said amount being the property of the Temple ought to h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment, the immovable properties of the Temple have already been handed over. He relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Sudhir Vasudeva, Chairman & MD. ONGC and Ors. v. M. George Ravishekaran and Ors. (2014) 4 SCR 27. He submitted that the power to punish for contempt has to be exercised with greatest care and caution. He submitted that considering the directions issued in paragraph 73 of the judgment dated 7th July 2015, after having handed over all the immovable properties, an action for contempt cannot be initiated against the Respondents. 7. We have given careful consideration to their submissions. We have already quoted paragraph 73 of the judgment dated 7th July 2015, which contains effective directions. Perusal of the jud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eport. 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 dated 7th July 2015 includes a direction to pay money, there is no adjudication made to decide what is the extent of liability. Hence, in our view, 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. This is not a fit case to exercise the said jurisdiction by punishing the Respondents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
