AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. Ng. Premkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 429 of 2011 and Mr. A. Mohendro and Mr. P. Tomcha, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 67 of 2017. Heard also Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned Addl. A.G., Manipur for the respondents.
Since these two writ petitions are inter-related, these are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.
W.P.(C) No. 429 of 2011 has been filed by the petitioner which is a registered association under the Manipur Societies Registration Act, seeking for a direction to the respondents not to control Maiba Loishang, Maibi Loishang, Pena Loishang, etc. which are instrumentalities of Umang Laiharaoba and also for a direction to constitute a board for management of affairs of Maiba Loishang, Maibi Loishang, Pena Loishang, etc. for performing Umang Lai-Haraoba ceremony or to hand over the management authority to the petitioner society.
It has been stated that the Government of Manipur enacted Shri Govindaji Temple Act, 1972 with various provisions for preservation of cultural tradition and for maintenance and better administration of the temple of Shri Govindaji at Imphal and its endowments. The said Act also provides for constitution of a board, namely Shri Govindaji Temple Board for administration and governance of the temple and the temple fund as provided under Section 3 of the Act. The functions of the Board have been enumerated under Section 15 of the Act. Section 30 of the Act enables the Board to make bye-laws not inconsistent with the provision of the Act or rules made thereunder or any other law for performing various functions. In exercise of powers conferred under Clause 1 of Section 30 of the said Act, the Board framed bye-laws called Shri Govindaji Temple Bye-Laws, 1976. Certain provisions of said bye-laws, referred to as Rule 12(v) and Rule 23 thereof, have been subject matter of challenge in the writ petition, C.R. No. 206 of 1987 before the Hon''ble Gauhati High Court, which were assailed as ultra-vires the Act as well as the mandate of Article 26 of the Constitution of India.
It has been contended that in the said writ petition, C.R. No. 206 of 1987, these two bye-laws (which have been referred to as rules) were held to be inconsistent with the Act and also contrary to Article 26 of the Constitution. The aforesaid Rule 12(V) provides that Umang Lai Committee will deal with matters of Pandit Loishang, Lai-Haraoba etc. and Rule 23 provides that the Pandit Loishang with their three Gurus will be in charge of the Institution of customs, conventions, social taboos, rites of Umang Lai, exogamy, Cheiraoba, etc. and give directions as to the right mode.
It was submitted by the petitioner in the said writ proceeding that Umang Lai is a separate entity and cannot be governed by Shri Govindaji Temple Act, 1972 which essentially deals with management of Shri Govindaji Temple. The Hon''ble Gauhati High Court after having gone through the aforesaid Act observed that the words "Umang Lai Committee" have not been used anywhere in the said Act, which would show that the said Act does not cover the institution of Umang Lai. The Hon''ble High Court, took the view that the rules, bye-laws cannot be enacted contrary to the Act and since the institution of Umang Lai is not covered by the Act, the bye-laws framed dealing with the institution of Umang Lai to that extent would be ultra vires the Act. The Hon''ble Gauhati High Court relied on the decision of the Apex Court rendered in Digyadarsan Rajendra Ramdassjvaree V. State of A.P. reported in AIR 1970 SC 181 wherein it was held that the freedom of religion in the Constitution is not confined to religious beliefs only; it extends to religious practice as well subject to the restriction which the Constitution itself has laid down. Accordingly, the Hon''ble High Court in the said C.R. No. 206 of 1987 concluded that Rule 12(V) and Rule 23 of the bye-laws and other provisions in the Bye-laws with regard to the functioning of the Umang Lai Loishang and Lai Haraoba are ultra vires the Act and accordingly, quashed the same. The relevant portions of the aforesaid judgment and order passed in C.R. No. 206 of 1987 on 06.05.1996 are reproduced herein below :
"7. In view of the settled principle of law inunciated by the Apex Court it would clearly appear that the Board has framed the Rules contrary to the mandate of Section 30 of the Act and also ultra-vires the mandate of Article 26(d) of the Constitution. In the result, Rule 12(v) and Rule 23 of Bye-Laws and other relevant provisions in the Bye-Laws with regard to the functioning of the Umanglai Loisang and Laiharaoba are hereby quashed and as ultra vires the Act. In the facts and circumstances of the case we pass no order as to costs.
Before parting with the record we are constrained to observe that for the interest of religious denomination and up-keep, maintenance and smooth administration or religious denomination, the appropriate Government may, by a suitable legislation, pass an Act covering the Umanglai Institutions, if so advised."
The petitioner association has contended that in spite of declaring the aforesaid bye-laws to be ultra-vires the Act thereby, denuding Shri Govindaji Temple Board of the powers to exercise functions as regards the institutions of Umang Lai, the Shri Govindaji Temple Board continued to discharge the functions as regards the Pandit Laoishang, Maiba Loishang, Maibai Loishang, Pena Loishang. It has been contended by the petitioner association that the Shri Govindaji Temple Board does not at all relate to the functioning and management of the affairs of the institutions of Umang Lai and hence, it cannot be allowed to continue to manage the affairs of the institutions of the Umang Lai as the Board is neither legally entitled to do so in terms of the judgment rendered by the Gauhati High Court nor in terms of any customary practice. Accordingly, the petitioner association had approached the authorities for restraining the Shri Govindaji Temple Board from managing the affairs of the institution of Umang Lai and allow the petitioner society to manage the affairs of the institution of Umang Lai. Since there has been no response from the authorities in spite of representation being submitted to that effect, the petitioner association has now approached this Court by filing this writ petition.
It is the contention of Mr. Ng. Premkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner association that after passing of the order dated 06.05.1996 in C.R. No. 206 of 1987, the Shri Govindaji Temple Board has been divested of all the power to manage the affairs of the institutions of the Umang Lai and hence, it has no authority to do so now. The petitioner, a registered association formed by devotees of various Umang Lai has accordingly, filed this petition seeking for a direction for allowing it to manage the institutions of Umang Lai, as the State Government has not yet made the suitable legislation as observed in C.R. No. 206 of 1987.
W.P.(C) No. 67 of 2012 has been filed by Shri Leishemba Sanajaoba who is the Maharaja of Manipur contending that the petitioner is the competent authority over the religious observance, customs, usages, rites and ceremonies and by virtue of the same, he had been exercising control and supervision of ceremonies in the State of Manipur including the institution of the Umang Lai as well as Shri Govindaji Temple. However, as far as the affairs relating the Govindaji Temple is concerned, the Maharaja has been divested of the powers to manage after the enactment of the Shri Govindaji Temple Act, 1972. However, since the aforesaid Rule 12(v) and Rule 23 of the Bye-laws conferring power on the Shri Govindaji Temple Board have been quashed by the High Court as ultravires the Act, to that extent it has denuded the Shri Govindaji Temple Board of the power to manage the affairs of the institutions of Umang Lai and such power and control over these institution would revert back to the petitioner as the competent authority as per customary practices, as the king.
It is the contention of the petitioner, Shri Leishemba Sanajaoba in this writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 67 of 2012 that the petitioner being the head of the religious institutions including the institution of the Umang lai, the Shri Govindaji Temple Board has no authority to interfere with the functioning of the petitioner after the power of the Board had been set aside by the High Court and also being contrary to the customary practices in Manipur. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed this petition, W.P.(C) No. 67 of 2012 seeking for a direction to the respondents not to interfere in management of the affairs of the institution of the Umang Lai by the petitioner.
The petitioner association in W.P.(C) No. 429 of 2011, on the other hand claims that being the representatives of Umang Lais, the association is entitled to manage the affairs of the institution of the Umang Lai in absence of any authority after the aforesaid bye-laws under the Act had been struck down by this Court and vacuum has been created.
On the other hand, Shri Leishemba Sanajaoba, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 67 of 2012 submitted that there is no vacuum, as contended by the other petitioner association, claiming that once the aforesaid bye-laws have been struck down, it would revert back to the earlier position as far as the management of the institution of Lai-haraoba is concerned, as it was being traditionally managed by the king of the State. The claim of Shri Leishemba Sanajaoba, the petitioner association in W.P.(C) No. 67 of 2012, however, has been resisted by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 429 of 2011 on the ground that he cannot now claim to be the king of Manipur any more. It has been contended that the king of Manipur, after the enforcement of the Constitution of India has ceased exist as the king. The power and functions which were earlier exercised by the king before the commencement of the Constitution of India, cannot be exercised any more now after the commencement of the Constitution. Therefore, it has been contended that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 67 of 2012 has no locus standi to claim any right to control or manage the affairs of the institution of the Umang Lai.
Mr. A. Mohendro and Mr. P. Tomcha, learned counsels for the petitioner, Shri Leishemba Sanajaoba in W.P.(C) No. 67 of 2012 have stated that the right of the petitioner, the king to control and manage the affairs of the customary rites and practices has been recognized by Article II of the Manipur Merger Agreement which reads as follows :
"His Highness the Maharaja shall continue to enjoy the same personal rights, privileges, dignities, titled, authorities over religious observances, customs, usages, rites and institutions in charge of the same in the State which he would have enjoyed had agreement not been made."
Accordingly, it has been submitted by the petitioner, the king, that as provided under Article II of Manipur Merger Agreement, the petitioner will continue to enjoy and exercise the rights as regards, the customary practices and institutions including institution of the Umang Lai.
Mr. Ng. Premkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner association however, has submitted that the Manipur Merger Agreement is null and void after enforcement of the Constitution of India and cannot now be enforced. It has also been submitted that the issues arising out of the Manipur Merger Agreement cannot be adjudicated by the Court of Law as provided under Article 363 (1) of the Constitution of India, which has been also so held by this Court in Suresh (Dr.), Centre of Foreign Studies & Placement V. Union of India & Anr. , 2016 Legal Eagled (Mani) 33 in PIL Case No. 7 of 2014. In the aforesaid PIL, this Court observed in para No. 5 thereof as follows :
"5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we find from the averments made in the PIL that the allegations made therein is with regard to non implementation of Article VIII of the Merger Agreement by the Union of India. The question as to whether the promise made under the said Article has been implemented or not is itself a dispute; otherwise there was no occasion on the part of the petitioner to file this PIL. Once it is considered to be a dispute, this Court lacks jurisdiction in deciding such dispute in view of the provision contained in Article 363(1) of the Constitution of India. In this connection, reference may also be made to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Nawab Usmanali Khan vs. Sagar Mal reported in AIR 1965 SC 1978. Though the facts are completely different, the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the said judgment has full application in the present case with reference to Article 363 of the Constitution of India. Similar view has also been expressed by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of The State of Rajasthan & Anr vs. Sawai Teijsinghji Maharaja of Alwar reported in AIR 1969 Rajasthan 52 (V 56 C 12). Since we hold that allegation of non implementation of certain promise under the Merger Agreement is itself a dispute, in view of the Article 363 of the Constitution of India, this Court lacks jurisdiction to decide the dispute."
Mr. Ng. Premkumar, learned counsel accordingly submits that in view of the aforesaid provision of the Constitution as also explained in the aforesaid PIL, any dispute arising out of Merger Agreement cannot be adjudicated before this Court.
In response to various contentions raised by the petitioners in these two writ petitions claiming respective rights to manage the affairs of the institutions of the Umang Lai, Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned Addl. A.G., Manipur submits that the State has already initiated the process for making appropriate legislation in this regard in terms of the observation made by the Hon''ble Gauhati High Court in C.R. No. 206 of 1987. The learned Addl. A.G. submits that a bill was introduced being, the Shri Govindaji Temple (3rd Amendment) Bill, 2014 before the Manipur Legislative Assembly on 22.07.2014 for making appropriate amendments in terms of the aforesaid observation of the Hon''ble Gauhati High Court for management of the institutions of Umang Lai and once the said bill is enacted, issues raised in these writ petitions would be addressed once for all and hence, there would not be any necessity to pass any specific direction as sought by the petitioners in these two writ petitions.
Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned Addl. A.G. submits that however, he is not in a position to state before this Court as to the present status of the said bill. He submits that as and when the bill is passed and the same is given assent by the Governor and takes the shape of a valid legislation, the affairs of the institutions of Umang Lai can be managed accordingly.
In view of the above submission made by the learned Addl. A.G., Manipur, this Court is of the view that issues raised by the petitioners in these two writ petitions can be resolved once the appropriate legislation has been enacted. It may also be stated that the Gauhati High Court never issued any specific direction to the State authorities for enacting any legislation but merely expressed the desirability of the same. However, keeping in mind the desirability of making appropriate/suitable legislation for the management of affairs of the institutions of Umang Lai for which, the State respondents have already initiated the process, it is expected that such a legislation will be enacted at the earliest in view of the uncertainty caused as regards the management of affairs of the institution of Umang Lai after the bye-laws 12(v) and 23 had been struck down and the competent authorities will do the needful as expeditious as possible.
This Court is not going into the merit of the claims and counter claims made by the two petitioners concerning the enforceability of merger agreement, and the right to manage the affairs of the Umang Lai, Lai-Haraoba etc., since the State authorities have already initiated steps for appropriate legislation as mentioned in Para No. 8 of the Civil Rule 206 of 1987 which Court expects to be completed as expeditiously as possible, keeping into consideration the importance of the issues involved.
In this regard, Mr. P. Tomcha, learned counsel submits that it cannot be said that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 67 of 2012 has raised any dispute about the merger agreement or the applicability of Article 363 of the Constitution of India, but the said dispute has been raised by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 429 of 2011. Hence, as no dispute has been raised by the petitioner, Shri Leishemba Sanajaoba in W.P.(C) No. 67 of 2012 as regards the rights and privileges conferred under the Merger Agreement, it cannot be said that the writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 67 of 2012 filed by Shri Leishemba Sanajaoba is barred by the Article 363 of the Constitution. It is accordingly, observed that since the petitioner, Shri Leishemba Sanajaoba in W.P.(C) No. 67 of 2012 is not making any prayer for right to manage the affairs of the institutions of Umang Lai since he is already exercising the same, this Court is not making any observation as far as the right of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 67 of 2012 is concerned. Accordingly, it may be noted that this Court has not decided the issues raised as regards the right claimed by the petitioner association in W.P.(C) No. 429 of 2011 or of the petitioner, Shri Leishemba Sanajaoba in W.P.(C) No. 67 of 2012 to manage the affairs of the institutions of Umang Lai based on the Manipur Merger Agreement. This Court is of the view that any decision in that regard may not be necessary at this stage and accordingly, the same is kept open to be decided in an appropriate proceeding.
Mr. Ng. Premkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner association in W.P.(C) No. 429 of 2011 submits that the matter has been pending since 1996 and as such, specific time frame may be fixed for enactment of the appropriate legislation.
This Court is of the view that it may not be advisable to fix any time frame as regards the framing of legislation. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the authorities will certainly look into the seriousness and importance of the issues involved and will make necessary steps for enactment of the appropriate legislation relating to the Umang Lai and other institutions.
To sum up, this Court would hold that since Rule 12(v) and Rule 23 of Bye- Laws of Shri Govindaji Temple Act, 1972 have been quashed as ultra-vires the Act by the Hon''ble Gauhati High Court in C.R. No. 206 of 1987, the power derived by the Shri Govindaji Temple Board under the aforesaid bye-laws will no more be available to the Board and as such, the Shri Govindaji Temple Board cannot exercise such power flowing out of Rule 12(v) and Rule 23 of the Bye-Laws, as far as the affairs of the institutions of Umang Lai, etc. are concerned. To that extent, the Shri Govindaji Temple Board will have no authority or power to do anything relating to affairs of the institutions of Umang Lai, Lai-Haraoba etc.
As regards the claims in the petitioners in these petitions for enabling them to manage the affairs of the institutions of the Umang Lai, this Court would also like to make the observation that since such right of the petitioners to manage the affairs of the Umang Lai institutions would depend on customary rights and practices and the related law in this regard which need to be established, and since this Court does not exercise such original adjudicatory and declaratory power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court will refrain from passing any order, except for making the observation that the petitioners would be at liberty to approach the competent forum for establishing their legal rights to do so.
It also goes without saying that once the suitable legislation is enacted, the management of the affairs of the institutions of Umang Lai would be on the basis of such legislation.
Accordingly, these two petitions stand disposed of in terms of the above observations and directions.