The Madhya Pradesh High Court has stayed the operation of the Single Judge's order directing the appointment of Pujari Pratinidhi at Shri Mahakaleshwar Temple in Ujjain, pending further hearing in an appeal filed by members of the temple's hereditary pujari family (sons of the late Dharamraj Sharma). The Division Bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar and Justice Jai Kumar Pillai directed;"Counsel...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has stayed the operation of the Single Judge's order directing the appointment of Pujari Pratinidhi at Shri Mahakaleshwar Temple in Ujjain, pending further hearing in an appeal filed by members of the temple's hereditary pujari family (sons of the late Dharamraj Sharma).
The Division Bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar and Justice Jai Kumar Pillai directed;
"Counsel for the appellants has submitted that since the order is to be complied with within 30 days' time, whereas according to the appellants, they were also the necessary parties to the petition, and they were not even made party in the writ petition, the impugned order may be stayed...considering the controversy involved, we are inclined to direct that till the next date of hearing, operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed".
The controversy began with a writ petition filed by Mangal Sharma seeking compliance with the order of the Appellate Court to appoint him as representative of Kamal Sharma (brother of Dharamraj Sharma). The Single Judge had disposed of the petition after the Collector, who is also Chairman of the Temple Prabandh Samiti, assured the court that the recommendation of January 16, 2023, for appointing Mangal Sharma as Pujari Pratinidhi would be implemented.
Thereafter, the present appellants filed the appeal challenging the Single Judge order of October 14, 2026. The appeal stated that they were necessary parties to the original writ petition but were not impleaded. It was further stated that the impugned order was required to be complied with within 30 days, which could adversely affect their rights.
The appeal stated that the recommendation of January 16, 2023 was made by only two members of the temple management committee, whereas Section 9 of MP Shri Mahakaleshwar Mandir Adhiniyam, 1982 prescribes a quorum of three members for committee meetings.
The appeal further stated that the dispute concerns the alleged adoption of Mangal Sharma by Kamal Sharma. Per the appeal, the adoption deed of January 30, 2008, is invalid under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act as Mangal Sharma was allegedly around 28-29 years old at the time. The appeal further stated that the judgment and decree recognizing the alleged adoption is also under challenge in a pending civil suit before the Civil Court in Ujjain.
During the hearing, the counsel appearing for the Administrator of Prabandh Samiti (respondent no 3) informed the court that the Samiti was also in the process of filing an appeal against the impugned order.
The senior advocate appearing for Mangal Sharma vehemently opposed the prayer for interim relief.
The bench, considering the controversy involved, passed the interim order, directed the State to file a reply, and listed the matter for December 9, 2026.
For Petitioner: Advocates Mudit Maheshwari and Aadesh Shinde
For Respondent no 1: Senior Advocate Virendra Sharma with Advocate Jitendra Sharma
For State: Government Advocate Amit Bhatia
For Respondent no 3: Advocate Deeptanshu Shukla