High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCOCP/1801/2017dismissed

Pandit Karanvere Randev v. Kbs Sidhu

2020-02-07Mr. Justice Surinder Gupta3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH.

COCP No.1801 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 07, 2020 Pandit Karanveer Randev ..........PETITIONER

VERSUS

KBS SIdhu ........RESPONDENT CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

Present:

Mr. M.K.Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Deepali Puri, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

******* SURINDER GUPTA, J.(Oral) The petitioner is seeking initiation of proceedings under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act against the respondent for violating the order dated 10.04.2015 passed in CWP No. 7985 of 1997. The above petition was disposed of with direction to the Financial Commissioner as follows:

12 "The Financial Commissioner, Revenue is directed to consider the claim of petitioner No. 2 for appointment as Mahant of petitioner No. 1 subject to all those conditions which the then Ruler of Patiala State had imposed while appointing the grandfather of petitioner No. 2 as Mahant vide order dated 18.05.1940. If the competent authority does not find petitioner No. 2 suffering any disqualification, the authorities are directed to follow the rule of succession and make consequential appointment. In the event of such

appointment, the appointee shall be bound by the conditions imposed by the erstwhile Ruler of Patiala State vide order dated 18.05.1940 (Annexure P3). The competent authority shall be at liberty to impose the additional terms and conditions also, if need be, in accordance with law. The appropriate decision shall be taken within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and meanwhile petitioner No. 2 shall be allowed to continue to perform the duties of Mahant-cum-Mohtmim.

13.

If the Financial Commissioner, Revenue does not accept the claim of second petitioner for appointment as Mahant-cum-Mohtmim, in that event, a speaking order shall have to be passed within the stipulated period and the Mahant shall have to be appointed as per the succession Rule elaborated above."

In pursuance of the above order, the Financial Commissioner has passed the order dated 31.08.2017 whereby the recommendations of the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala to appoint the petitioner as Mahant, was not accepted and he (Deputy Commissioner, Patiala) was directed to send the name of eligible person for appointment as Mahant in accordance with the directions of this Court contained in the order dated 10.04.2015. Learned counsel for the petitioner has alleged that being the legal heir of Kedarnath, the petitioner succeeded to his Mahantship and speaking order passed by the respondent is not in accordance with law. At the time of passing of order dated 10.04.2015, it was conceded that the State Government has authority in the matter of appointment of Mahant.

The order dated 31.08.2017 passed by Financial Commissioner has been challenged by the petitioner by filing a separate writ petition and

this Court has not to decide legality and validity of the order dated 31.08.2017. The respondent has complied with order dated 10.04.2015 (ibid) and no reason is made out to initiate proceedings against him under Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act.

This petition has no merits.

Dismissed.

Rule discharged.

( SURINDER GUPTA ) JUDGE February 07, 2020 Jyoti-II Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No