MRINALINI PADH versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

Citation: [2019] 16 S.C.R. 811 · Decided: 04-11-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Directions issued

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
811
MRINALINI PADHI
v.
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
(Writ Petition (Civil) No.649 of 2018)
NOVEMBER 04, 2019
[ARUN MISHRA, M. R. SHAH AND
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Constitution of India:
Art.32 – Petition under – Seeking direction for investigation/
inquiry into the disappearance of keys to the ‘Ratna Bhandar’ of
‘Shri Jagannath Temple, Puri’ – Also sought direction for
appointment of expert committee to prepare report for preservation
and management of property and valuables of the Temple – Prayer
also made to provide express darshan to the devotees visiting the
temple – Supreme Court by order dated 8.6.2018 directed District
Judge to submit a report before the Court – By order dated
5.7.2008 report of District Judge was accepted and more directions
were issued by the Court – Further Amicus Curie submitted his
reports pursuant to the orders passed by the Court from time to
time – During the pendency of the petition, State Government
decided to make land acquisitions so as to provide various facilities
to the pilgrims – Suggestions were also made by ‘Jagadguru
Shankaracharya’ – Held: There is total mal-administration and
chaos – No disciplinary control available – The Chief Administrator
is authorised for the time being, to take appropriate steps against
such servitors/incumbents who create obstruction in seva/puja/niti
and are involved in misbehaviour and misconduct against the
employees of the Temple Administration or with devotees – The
Temple Management Committee is directed to invite shrimad
Jagadguru Shankaracharya and other stakeholders and ensure
that nitis, puja and rituals are performed as prescribed, regularly,
punctually without any remiss and obstruction – There is necessity
for qualified servitors in traditional nitis and rituals – Economic
welfare of the survitors needs to be taken care of – A lot is required
to be done for providing proper darshan – Safety of pilgrims also
needs to be ensured – Temple Administration and Temple police
   [2019] 16 S.C.R. 811
811
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
812
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 16 S.C.R.
are directed to ensure that – Identity cards should be issued to the
survitors and the staff – There is also need for setting up of schools
for children, accommodation for pilgrims, effluent treatment plant
and waste management system, separate toilets for male and female,
cloak room, motorcycle stand – Temple Managing Committee and
Temple Administration are also directed to ensure hygiene in
Rosaghar where Bhog for Diety is prepared and hygienic sale of
prasad – Sub-letting of seva/puja also needs to be prohibited –
Inventory is directed to be prepared as regards the immovable
property of the Temple – Temple management is directed to place
before Supreme Court as to what kind of inventory it has prepared
with respect to valuables of the Temple – State Government is
directed to depute full time Chief Administrator – Archaeological
Survey of India is also directed to co-operate and to permit the
activities of improvement – Progress report and the decisions taken
need to be submitted in Supreme Court.
Sarika v. Administrator, Shri Mahakaleshwar Mandir
Committee, Ujjain, M.P. & ors., (2018) 6 SCALE 651
– referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2018) 6 SCALE 65
referred to
Para 1
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.
649 of 2018.
[Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India]
With
M.A. No. 2053 and 2131 of 2019 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1094
of 2019.
Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv. (A.C.).
Tushar Mehta, SG., Ashok Parija, AG, R. Balasubramaniam,
Mohan Parasaran, P. C. Mishra, Ms. Priya Hingorani, S. K. Padhi, Sr.
Advs., Nalin Kohli, Shibashish Misra, Ms. Janmeja Katikia, Anshul
Gupta, Sachin Sharma, A. K. Sharma, Raj Bahadur, Gaurav Khanna,
S. Debabrata Reddy, Suvidutt M. S., Ms. Anu B., J. Sai Deepak,
Avinash Sharma, Arnav Behera, Ms. Shayree Chakravarty,  B. K. Dash,
R. M. Patnaik, Himansu Yadav, Kush Chaturvedi, Prabhu Prasanna
Behara, Ms. Nirmalya Mohanty, Ms. Kalpataru Khuntia, Kaliyug
Harekrushna, Suvendu Suvashis Dash, Ashok Panigrahi, Anmol Tayal,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
813
S. Vinay Ratnakar, Nawab Singh, Surender Deswal, Brijinder Singh
Loomba, Jasmeet Singh, Amritpal Singh Khalsa, A. K. Mehta, Ms.
Neena Singh, Sahil A. Garg, Manish Tanwar, Tushar Chhabra,
Swetaketu Mishra, Sanjay K. Das, V. K. Monga, Debasis Misra,
Vishaal S. Jogdand, Suhas Kadam, Sreyas Gacche, Paul Kanakraj,
Jagdev, Ms. Pareena Swarup, Ms. Nanita Sharma, Dr. Sanatan Ray
Choudhari, Ms. Alpana Sharma, R. Sh

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.