Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1922 (RAJ)

Abdul Hameed v. State of Rajasthan

2019-07-08

DINESH MEHTA

body2019
JUDGMENT Dinesh Mehta, J. - I. A. No.02/2019 The petitioners have preferred the present application seeking early hearing of the matter. For the reasons stated in the application and looking to the fact that controversy at hand lies in a very narrow compass, the application is allowed. The matter is taken up for consideration today itself. Civil Writ Petition No.5409/2014 : 2. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioners have made the following prayers : "(i) The order impugned dated 15.09.2018 (Annex.6) passed by the respondent No.3, may be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside and same may kindly be declared ineffective; (ii) The right of the petitioners i.e. Chayal Pujaries to receive all kind of offerings offered by the followers and disciples of Shri Goga Ji in the Galla put before the shrine of Shri Goga Ji may kindly be restored and the petitioners may kindly be permitted to receive all kind of offerings offered by the followers and disciples of Shri Gogaji in the Galla put before the shrine of Shri Gogaji for 11 moths as per the prevailing practice. (iii) The position/status of the worship as well as the right to receive the offerings in the Galla put before the shrine of Shri Goga Ji as existed prior to the order dated 15.09.2008 may kindly be restored back. (iii) The position/status of the worship as well as the right to receive the offerings in the Galla put before the shrine of Shri Goga Ji as existed prior to the order dated 15.09.2008 may kindly be restored back. (iv) The respondents may kindly be directed to hand over all the amount of offerings received and kept preserved by the Devasthan Department offered by the followers and disciples of Shri Goga Ji in the Galla put before the shrine of Shri Goga Ji for the period of 11 months of each year since 15.09.2008 uptill of handing over the charge of the Galla put before the shrine of Shri Goga Ji back to the petitioners; (v) The respondent Devasthan Department may kindly be restrained from interfering or obstructing the right of the Chayal Pujaries to worship as well as to receive all kind of offerings made by the followers and disciples in the Galla put before the shrine of Shri Goga Ji for 11 month of the year and the respondents may, further, be directed to maintain the prevailing practice in its true letter and spirit; (vi) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in favour of the petitioners, may kindly be granted and (vi) The cost of the writ petition be allowed in favour of the petitioners." 3. The facts in brief relevant for the present purposes are that the order dated 15.09.2008 (Annex.6), impugned in the present writ petition came to be passed in furtherance of the interim order dated 08.09.2008 passed in SB Civil Writ Petition No.6836/2008, which is evident from the impugned order dated 15.09.2008 itself, which reads thus : 4. Mr. Balia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners pointed out that the order impugned dated 15.09.2008 came to be passed in furtherance of the interim order dated 08.09.2008, passed in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.6836/2008 and the said writ petition had been dismissed by this Court, vide its order dated 16.04.2013. 5. Having pointed out these facts, Mr. Balia, contended that since the basis or edifice of the order dated 15.09.2008 has gone, the respondents are not justified in continuing with the method, which they had adopted vide order/communication dated 15.09.2008. 5. Having pointed out these facts, Mr. Balia, contended that since the basis or edifice of the order dated 15.09.2008 has gone, the respondents are not justified in continuing with the method, which they had adopted vide order/communication dated 15.09.2008. According to him, since the writ petition No.6836/2008 has been dismissed, the respondent-Devsthan Department cannot continue to perform Seva Pooja in Veer Gogajee Temple, Gogamedi, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh and they should have made arrangement in terms of the compromise decree dated 25.03.1980. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that the petitioners are not otherwise entitled or eligible to perform Seva Pooja in the aforesaid temple in view of the reasons stated in the reply. Learned counsel tried to satisfy the Court about the petitioners' dis-entitlement of performing Seva Pooja. 7. In the considered opinion of this Court, a look at the impugned order dated 15.09.2018, as reproduced above, reveals that it is solely based upon the order dated 08.09.2008, passed by this Court. 8. It is settled proposition of law that the administrative order has to stand on its own footing. The reasons stated in the form of additional affidavit cannot supplement reasons or justify the order on other counts. 9. Concededly, the impugned order dated 15.09.2008 came to be passed in furtherance of the interim order dated 08.09.2008 in SB Civil Writ Petition No.6836/2008, which has been dismissed by this Court on 16.04.2013. 10. This being the position, as a matter of fact, the impugned order dated 15.09.2008 being co-terminus with the writ proceedings had come to an end automatically, alongwith the dismissal of the writ petition. 11. Be that as it may, after dismissal of the writ petition vide order dated 16.04.2013, the order dated 15.09.2008 impugned in the present writ petition has lost its existence or sanctity. 12. The writ petition is thus allowed. It is declared that order dated 15.09.2008 (Annex.6) had come to an end on 16.04.2013. 13. This being the position, the respondents are directed to do the needful, treating impugned order dated 15.09.2008 to have ceased on 16.04.2013. 14. Needless to observe that the disposal of the writ petition shall not deprive any of the parties to take appropriate remedies in accordance with law either for recovery of the amount in question or for taking any other action(s) against each other.