Team Herald
PANJIM: The High Court of Bombay at Goa in an interim order set aside impugned order of the Mamlatdar and the Tribunal and restrained Shree Ramnath Damodar Saunsthan, Zambaulim from dispossessing priest Damodar Bhat from the premises in question during the pendency of the proceedings before the Mamlatdar.
The court has asked petitioner Damodar Bhat to deposit Rs 2000 per month before the Mamlatdar, subject to the final result of the said proceedings. In the event the representation/ main proceeding is allowed, the petitioner will be entitled to refund of such amount and in case the representation is rejected, the amounts deposited by the petitioner will be made forfeited by the Shree Ramnath Damodar Saunsthan.
The Mamlatdar has been asked to decide the representation/main proceeding initiated by the petitioner expeditiously within next three months. The parties are directed to cooperate with the Mamlatdar for disposal of the representation/main proceeding within the stipulated time, the court said while disposing of the writ petition.
Although there was no material brought on record to show that the petitioner was indulging in any nuisance in the premises, the court has made it clear that the petitioner will not in any manner interfere with the functioning, religious rituals and service in the temple during the pendency of the proceeding before the Mamlatdar, while continuing in possession of the premises.
Bhat had earlier filed a representation before the Mamlatdar/administrator of devalayas under the Devasthan Regulations, contending that he was wrongly removed as the priest in the temple without any written order and prayed that the action of the saunsthan be set aside. He sought direction to the saunsthan office-bearers to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits.
Bhat had also prayed that the respondent be restrained from interfering with his right to perform religious duties in the temple, from disconnecting electricity and water supply to the premises in his possession and an order restraining the respondent from evicting him from the premises during the pendency of the representation before the mamlatdar/ administrator.
The respondents vehemently opposed the application for interim reliefs, contending that the petitioner was kept in service of the temple on temporary and irregular basis, as and when required by the head priest. It was further contended that the accommodation provided to the petitioner was not connected with the said service temporarily availed and therefore, the application for interim reliefs ought to be rejected.
