Read Time: 08 minutes

• The Border Samaj of the Kamakhya Shrine moved the Top Court stating that the board which was declared illegal had indulged in misappropriation of funds.

• A 17-year old standoff ended on July 7, 2015 after the Top Court passed landmark ruling in the management of the Kamakhya shrine, declaring Kamakhya Debutter Board illegal, reinstating the Bordeories Samaj, vesting in it all powers of temple magement.

  ---

  While disposing off a plea yesterday by Bordeuri Samaj of Kamakhya Devalaya against the temple's Debutter Board for alleged misappropriation of funds, Supreme Court has said that it is not a fit case for interference.

A contempt plea was filed by the elected Dolois (head priest) representing members of Bordeuri Samaj of Kamakhya Devalaya.

Bordeuri Samaj of Kamakhya Devalaya invoked the jurisdiction of the top Court under Article 129 of the Constitution read with the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for initiating action against against the authorities whereby the Kamakhya Debutter Board was directed to vacate the premises and other properties of the temple to the Head Priest of the temple.

Following grievances were raised in the contempt plea,

1. Possession of the immovable properties being buildings has not been handed over to Bordeuri Samaj
2. Various movable properties of the Temple, have not been handed over to the petitioner.
3. Though as per the statement of accounts submitted on behalf of Debutter Board, it was holding surplus cash amount of not less than Rupees eleven crores, which belonged to the Deity, it has not been paid. 
4. Books of accounts pertaining to the Temple have not been handed over to the petitioner.

Senior Advocate Rajiv Dhavan informed the Court that immovable property of Kamakhya Temple, as well as other subsidiary temples had been handed over to the petitioner in terms of the Judgment of 2015.

He added that what remained in the contempt petitions was the recovery of the misappropriated money belonging to Temple from the board.

Dhavan relied on a report dated January 8, 2020 submitted by the Additional Director General of Police, CID, Assam, which recorded that there is a misappropriation of a sum of Rs.7,62,03,498/-. It was further recorded in the said report that the office bearers of Debutter Board did not cooperate for the inquiry.

The Court after a perusal of the Judgment dated July 7, 2015, which contains effective directions, noted that there was no discussion therein about the liability of the respondent to pay any specific amount.

"Paragraph 73 refers to premises and other properties of Kamakhya Temple. However, there is no finding recorded that any particular amount is payable by the respondent nos.1 to 4 to the petitioner", noted a bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S Oka.

Referring to the report of the ADGP, CID, Assam, the Court held that what was observed in the said report was not conclusive.

"It is argued that the report of the Additional Director General of CID, Assam has not been disputed by the concerned respondents. Perusal of the order dated 31st January 2020 shows that there was no opportunity granted to the parties to file any objections to the report. It cannot be said that as the respondents did not object to the report, they have accepted the liability to pay the amount of Rs.7,62,03,498/-. Moreover, the observations in the report cannot be treated as concluded findings."

Even assuming that the Judgment dated July 7, 2015 included a direction to pay money, the bench held that there was no adjudication made to decide what is the extent of liability.

"Hence, in our view, no case made out to take action under Article 129 of the Constitution read with the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Moreover, the contempt jurisdiction is always discretionary which should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. This is not a fit case to exercise the said jurisdiction by punishing the respondents. However, it is always open for the petitioner to adopt appropriate proceedings for recovery of money as mentioned in the report in accordance with law", ordered the Court while disposing the contempt petition.

Cause Title: THE BORDEURI SAMAJ OF SRI SRI MAA KAMAKHYA v. RIJU PRASAD SARMA & ORS.