UP Govt Offers To Administer Mathura Temples Which Are Under Receivership Of Advocates, Seeks Supreme Court's Permission

In a case where the Supreme Court raised concerns regarding the appointment of advocates as court receivers of various temples in Mathura, the State of Uttar Pradesh today (February 6) requested the Court to hand over the temples' management to the State during the pendency of the civil suits. Senior Advocate Navin Pahwa, appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh, submitted that the State is seeking the handover of the management of the 8 temples in Mathura, where the advocates have been appointed as receivers."We request your lordships to issue directions to decide the civil proceedings at the earliest, please consider permitting this Parishad to either administer directly or appoint people who can administer from local people - who are associated with the temple, their administration. They will run and administer the temple under the order of your lordships' court until such time the civil proceedings are finally concluded." Pahwa referred to the State Legislation recently enacted to ensure the protection and preservation of the heritage of the Mathura Temples in specific. As per the Act, there would be a State Parishad having an expert body to manage the temples in Mathura until their court disputes are settled. "We have to only make sure that this body of experts, which has people from the local region- who have no other interest but to administer holistically, is permitted to run the temple until such time that the civil proceedings are finally concluded."He also added that such temples receive funds or offerings from the devotees in lakhs and proper receivers were needed. The bench of Justice Bela Trivedi and Justice SC Sharma was hearing the issue of the appointment of advocates as receivers of Temples in Uttar Pradesh. The plea was filed by one Ishwar Chanda Sharma, who was appointed by a Mathura Court as a member of a Committee for management and operation (ie Receiver/Manager) of a temple. His grievance is that the Mathura Court order was set aside by the Allahabad High Court and the matter was remitted back for fresh consideration. In December last year, the bench had raised concerns at the Mathura temples coming under the receivership of advocates.On Banke Bihari Temple : Permission Sought By UP Govt To Use Temple Funds To Buy Additional Land To Accommodate Devotees Referring to Shri Banke Bihari Temple established in 1864, Pahwa highlighted that the main temple area was only 500 square yards but received a massive footfall of devotees. "Everyday there are 40,000 to 50,000 devotees coming on a weekday. The figure swells up to 1.5 lakhs to two lakhs per weekend, On festivals- 5Lakhs plus! The total area of the temple is 1,200 sqft." In 2022, in a PIL before the Allahabad High Court, the state submitted that to manage the crowd and build a better holding area and corridor for the devotees at the temple, it took steps to buy an additional 5 acres of land in the name of that temple. He emphasized that the State had no interest in the management within the temple but only wanted to cater to the betterment of the devotees. "We don't want to have ownership rights, nothing in the temple except to make sure the welfare of the devotees around the temple ...inside temple we have no concern, we are not interested directly to go inside the temple." However, he added that though the High Court sanctioned the scheme, tthe Court said that funds of the temple could not be used for any other purposes. Thus, the state is now seeking permission from the present bench to buy additional land out of the temple funds in the name of the temple. Advocates Can Be Appointed As Receiver; No Bar Under Order 40 Of CPC: Appellants ArgueThe appellants represented by AOR Abhikalp Pratap Singh and Advocate Kartikay argued that "Order 40 of CPC, does not implicitly or explicitly specify any requirement. Tt is solely on the discretion of the Court for the appointment of receivers." Notably, Order 40 details the procedure for the appointment of receivers. Order 40, rules 1 states : (1) Where it appears to the Court to be just and convenient, the Court may by order—(a) appoint a receiver of any property, whether before or after decree; (b) remove any person from the possession or custody of the property; (c) commit the same to the possession, custody or management of the receiver; and (d) confer upon the receiver all such powers, as to bringing and defending suits and for the realisation, management, protection, preservation and improvement of the property, the collection of the rents and profits thereof, the application and disposal of such rents and profits, and the execution of documents as the owner himself has, or such of those powers as the Court thinks fit. Stressing on sub-clause (d), the counsel added that an advocate would very much fit the role of defending suits and management etc, of the temple. He also relied on the following part of Paragraph 29 of the impugned order (as underlined) to emphasize that an...

UP Govt Offers To Administer Mathura Temples Which Are Under Receivership Of Advocates, Seeks Supreme Court's Permission

Anmol Kaur Bawa

Tags