2025 INSC 700 SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 1 of 62

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025

[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 29702 OF 2024]

ISHWAR CHANDA SHARMA …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

DEVENDRA KUMAR SHARMA

& ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appeal before us has been preferred by the Appellant

against the final judgement and order dated 27.08.2024 in

Contempt Application (C) No. 4429 of 2023 (hereinafter

"Impugned Order”) passed by the High Court of Judicature at

Allahabad (hereinafter “High Court”), whereby the High Court

allowed the petition preferred by Respondent No. 1 and

Respondent No. 2, and set aside order dated 28.03.2023 passed

by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mathura/Respondent No. 3

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 2 of 62

(hereinafter “Trial Court”), and remanded the matter back for

fresh consideration.

3. During the course of the hearing, this Court has allowed

I.A. No. 15019/2025, being an application for intervention filed

by the State of Uttar Pradesh/Respondent No. 4; and I.A. No.

16856/2025, being an application for intervention filed by Shri

Dilip Kumar Sharma/Respondent No. 5.

4. Factual Background

4.1 The Sri Giriraj Sewak Samiti, Bara Bazar, Govardhan,

Mathura, is a registered society under the Societies Registration

Act, and was constituted to manage the affairs of Sri Giriraj

Temple, Govardhan, Mathura on 18.11.1957.

4.2 The committee elections held in the year 1999 put a hiatus

to the peaceful functioning of the administration of the temple,

as it resulted in a dispute regarding the validity of two alleged

elections held on 24.04.1999 and 30.04.1999. Consequently, Shri

Govind Prasad Purohit (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) filed Original

Suit No. 332 of 1999 (hereinafter “Civil Suit”) seeking a

permanent injunction against the Defendant/Respondent

No. 5/Dilip Kumar Sharma from causing any hinderance in all

types of management and operations of the Giriraj Temple. Both

the Plaintiff and the Defendant/Respondent No. 5 also filed two

separate election petitions pursuant to the same, which came to

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 3 of 62

be referred to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the

Societies Registration Act.

4.3 Vide order dated 11.02.2000, the Prescribed Authority held

the election dated 24.04.1999 to be valid by which Respondent

No. 5 was declared to be the Manager.

4.4 Aggrieved, the Plaintiff preferred a Writ Petition before

the High Court, being WP (C) No. 9601 of 2000, which came to

be dismissed vide order dated 10.02.2006 on the ground of being

infructuous.

4.5 Consequently, the Plaintiff passed away in 2006, and his

son Jitendra Prasad Purohit (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) moved an

application seeking to be impleaded in the Civil Suit, and setting

up his claim to be appointed as Manager of Committee of

Management.

4.6 Vide order dated 30.07.2021, the Trial Court in the Civil

Suit appointed Shri Nand Kishore Upadhyay, Advocate as

Receiver of the temple, who was also the advocate representing

the Plaintiff in the Civil Suit.

4.7 Respondent No. 5 preferred a Writ Petition, being No.

4468 of 2021, against the order dated 30.07.2021 and the

appointment of an advocate as the receiver. Vide order dated

23.11.2021, the High Court set aside the order dated 30.07.2021

with the consent of the parties, and remanded the matter back to

the Trial Court for fresh consideration.

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 4 of 62

4.8 Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the Trial Court decided the

application for appointment of Receiver and appointed a Seven

Member Committee (hereinafter “the Committee”), which

included 3 lawyers. While deciding the constitution of the

Committee, Respondent No. 1 herein had made an application

before the Trial Court expressing his desire to be appointed.

However, Respondent No. 1 did not find mention in the

Committee on account of him being in government service and

being unable to devote his time sufficiently to the temple

management. Pertinently, the Appellant herein was appointed as

a member of the said Committee.

4.9 Aggrieved, Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2

preferred a Contempt Petition, being Contempt Application

(Civil) No. 4429/2023, for prosecuting and punishing the Ld.

Civil Judge/Respondent No. 3 for her wilful disobedience of the

order dated 23.11.2021 passed by the High Court on the ground

that instead of appointing a single Receiver, a Seven Member

Committee of Receiver has been appointed.

4.10 Vide Impugned Order dated 27.08.2024, the High Court

set aside order dated 28.03.2023 passed by the Trial Court as it

frustrates the provision of Order XL Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure

Code, 1908 (hereinafter “CPC”), and remitted the matter back

for consideration of the application afresh in the light of

directions of the High Court order dated 23.11.2021. The High

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 5 of 62

Court observed that in the present case, the Civil Suit has been

pending for over 25 years and only plaintiff evidence has

concluded to date. Further, the High Court observed that there are

eight temples which are all under the administration of Receivers

and most of them are managed by practicing advocates of

Mathura. The High Court directed the Trial Court to make every

endeavour to appoint, if necessary, a Receiver who is connected

with the management of a temple and has some religious leaning

towards the deity.

5. Aggrieved, the Appellant who was not a party before the

High Court, has preferred the present SLP on the grounds of

violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, secular nature of

appointment, and eligibility of advocates as receivers.

6. During the course of the hearing, vide interim order dated

09.12.2024, this Court observed as under:

“1. Permission to file SLP is granted.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, who

claims to be one of the Committee Members

appointed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division,

Mathura (Trial Court) vide the Order dated

28.03.2023 passed in O.S. No. 332/1999 for

management and operation i.e. Receiver/Manager

of the Temple. The said order has been set aside by

the High Court vide the important order dated

27.08.2024, with direction to remit the matter back

to the Trial Court for fresh consideration.

3. The impugned order dated 27.08.2024, passed by

the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in

Contempt Application (Civil) No. 4429 of 2023,

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 6 of 62

highlights the glaring state of affairs prevailing in

the State of Uttar Pradesh, particularly, in the

District-Mathura with regard to the administration

of the Trusts in Temples, which are supposed to be

very important and sacred places for Hindus.

4. The glaring observations made by the High Court

in its impugned order, are reproduced as hereunder;

……….“1.Receivership in the temple

town of Mathura has become the new

norm. Most of the famous and ancient

temples are in the grip of legal battle,

restraining the temple trust, its Shebait

and the Committee to manage its

affairs and are being run by persons

appointed by the Court as Receivers

under Order XL of Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter called as

‘C.P.C.’).

2. Out of the list of 197 temples as

provided by District Judge, Mathura

on 23.05.2024, there are civil

litigations pending of these temples

situated at Vrindavan, Govardhan,

Baldeo, Gokul, Barsana, Maath etc.

The litigation ranges from the year

1923 till the year 2024. In these

famous temples of Vrindavan,

Govardhan and Barasana, practising

advocates of Mathura Court have been

appointed Receivers. The interest of

Receiver lies in keeping the litigation

pending. No effort is made to conclude

the civil proceedings, as the entire

control of temple administration vest

in the hands of Receiver. Most of the

litigation is in respect of management

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 7 of 62

of temples and appointment of

Receivers.

3. A practising lawyer cannot devote

sufficient time for the administration

and management of a temple,

especially of Vrindavan and

Govardhan, which needs skill in the

temple management along with full

devotion and dedication. It has become

a symbol of status in the city of

Mathura.

4. The present contempt application

under Section 12 of Contempt of

Courts Act has been filed by a stranger

for punishing the opposite party on the

ground that earlier Writ Court on

23.11.2021, while disposing of Matters

under Article 227 No. 4468 of 2021

had set aside the order of Civil Judge

(Senior Division), Mathura passed in

Original Suit No. 332 of 1999

appointing an advocate as a Receiver

who was also the counsel of the

plaintiff.

5. The court below was required to

decide the application for appointment

of Receiver afresh on merits. Pursuant

to order of writ Court, the Court below

proceeded to decide the application for

appointment of Receiver on

28.03.2023, and appointed a Seven

Member Committee of Receiver which

included three lawyers.

6. The entire thrust of the applicant

counsel is that court below should not

have appointed a Committee of

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 8 of 62

Receiver, but should have considered

the application moved by the applicant

for being appointed as a Receiver, it

should have appointed any one person

connected with temple as Receiver, and

not a Committee.

7. Learned counsel then contended

that on 18.11.1957 Sri Giriraj Sewak

Samiti, Bara Bazar, Govardhan was

constituted to manage the affairs of Sri

Giriraj Temple, Govardhan, Mathura,

which was registered under Societies

Registration Act, and the Committee

continued till 1998 without any

dispute.

8. As dispute arose between office

bearers of the Committee, an election

petition was filed which was referred

to Prescribed Authority on 13.12.1999.

The Prescribed Authority on

11.02.2000 held the election to be

valid. Against the said order, Writ-C

No. 9601 of 2000 was filed. In the

meantime, one Govind Prasad filed

Original Suit No. 332 of 1999 for

declaring him as Manager of the

Committee of Management in

pursuance of the election dated

21.04.1999. On 10.05.1999, an

interim injunction was granted. The

Writ Petition No. 9601 of 2000 which

was filed challenging the order of

Prescribed Authority was dismissed on

10.02.2006.

9. Unfortunately, Govind Prasad

Purohit passed away on 28.11.2006,

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 9 of 62

and one Jitendra Prasad Purohit

moved an impleadment application in

the original suit setting up his claim to

be appointed as Manager of

Committee of Management. It was in

the year 2021 that one Nand Kishore

Upadhyay, Advocate was appointed as

Receiver of the temple who was the

advocate of Ramakant Kaushik, who

was also impleaded in the Original

Suit No. 332 of 1992 by removal of

Jitendra Prasad Purohit. The order of

appointment of Nand Kishore

Upadhyay, Advocate dated 30.07.2021

was challenged by way of Matters

under Article 227 No. 4468 of 2021

which was disposed of on 23.11.2021

requiring the application to be

considered afresh.

10. This Court on 21.05.2024 had

required the counsel appearing for

Allahabad High Court to seek

information from the District and

Sessions Judge, Mathura as to pending

civil suits in respect of temples situated

in District-Mathura, and also furnish

complete information in regard to date

of institution of suit, stage of suit,

appointment of Receiver in the suit

along with the date, and also

information as to the advocate

appointed as Receiver in the said suits.

11. On 24.05.2024, Sri Chandan

Sharma, learned counsel appearing

for Allahabad High Court placed

before the Court the instructions so

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 10 of 62

received by him from District Judge,

Mathura along with list of 197 civil

suits which are pending in the Civil

Court at Mathura in respect of old

temples with the entire details of

temple name and its location, date of

institution of suit, stage of suit,

whether Receiver appointed or not, if

appointed date of appointment and

name and details of advocates

appointed as Receiver.

12. Another instruction dated

27.05.2024 has also been received

from District Judge, Mathura giving

the entire details of the cases

mentioned from Serial No. 1 to 8 of list

submitted earlier.

13. Sri Sharma raised a preliminary

objection as to the maintainability of

the contempt application on the

ground that the applicant is neither a

party in the suit nor was under the zone

of consideration for appointment of

Receiver, thus, could not maintain the

present contempt application. He then

contended that earlier round of

litigation was filed by one Dileep

Kumar Sharma who was a party to

Original Suit No. 332 of 1999 and

impleadment application of the

applicant till date has not been

decided.

14. I have heard respective counsel for

the parties and perused the material on

record.

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 11 of 62

15. The concept of appointment of

Receiver lies under Order XL of C.P.C.

Relevant provision of Order XL Rule 1

reads as under:-

“1. Appointment of receivers.—(1)

Where it appears to the Court to be just

and convenient, the Court may by

order—

(a) appoint a receiver of any property,

whether before or after decree;

(b) remove any person from the

possession or custody of the property;

(c) commit the same to the possession,

custody or management of the

receiver; and

(d) confer upon the receiver all such

powers, as to bringing and defending

suits and for the realisation,

management, protection, preservation

and improvement of the property, the

collection of the rents and profits

thereof, the application and

disposal of such rents and profits, and

the execution of documents as the

owner himself has, or such of those

powers as the Court thinks fit. (2)

Nothing in this rule shall authorise the

Court to remove from the possession or

custody of property, any person whom

any party to the suit has not a present

right so to remove.

16. From perusal of provision of Order

XL Rule 1 C.P.C., it is clear that the

object of appointing a Receiver is to

protect, preserve and manage the

property during the pendency of a suit.

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 12 of 62

The words “to be just and convenient”

have been substituted for the words “to

be necessary for the realization,

preservation or better custody, or

management of any property, movable

or immovable, subject of a suit or

attachment”. The effect of this

amendment is that the Court may now

appoint a Receiver not only in a

particular case specified in the old

section, but in every case in which it

appears to the Court to be just and

convenient to do so.

17. The power of the Court to appoint

a Receiver under this order is subject

to the controlling provision of Section

94 and is to be exercised for preventing

the ends of justice from being

defeated. Section 94 CPC reads as

under;

“94. Supplemental Proceedings.-In

order to prevent the ends of justice

from being defeated the Court may, if

it is so prescribed,—

(a) issue a warrant to arrest the

defendant and bring him before the

Court to show cause why he should not

give security for his appearance, and if

he fails to comply with any order for

security

commit him to the civil prison;

(b) direct the defendant to furnish

security to produce any property

belonging to him and to place the same

at the disposal of the Court or order

the attachment of any property;

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 13 of 62

(c) grant a temporary injunction and in

case of disobedience commit the

person guilty thereof to the civil prison

and order that his property be attached

and sold;

(d) appoint a receiver of any property

and enforce the performance of his

duties by attaching and selling his

property;

(e) make such other interlocutory

orders as may appear to the Court to

be just and convenient.”

18. The source of power of the Court to

grant interim relief is under Section

94. However, exercise of that power

can only be done if the circumstances

of the case fall under the rules.

Therefore, when a matter comes before

the Court, the Court has to examine the

facts of each case and ascertain

whether the ingredients of Section 94

read with rules, in an order, are

satisfied and accordingly grant an

appropriate relief.

19.The word ‘may’ gives discretion to

the Court where it is alleged that the

suit property is under threat and

protection, preservation, management

and improvement of the property,

along with collection of rents and

profits is required, then the Court may

exercise its power during the pendency

of litigation by appointing any person

as Receiver.

20. In Satyanarayan Banerji &

Another Vs. Kalyani Prosad Singh Deo

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 14 of 62

Bahadur & Others, AIR 1945 CAL

387, the Court held that object and

purpose of appointment of a Receiver

may generally be stated to be the

preservation of subject matter of the

litigation pending, a judicial

determination of the rights of the

parties thereto. The Receiver is

appointed for the benefit of all

concerned, he is the representative of

the Court and of all parties interested

in the litigation, wherein he is

appointed. The appointment of a

Receiver is an act of Court and made

in the interest of justice. He is an

officer or representative of the Court

subject to its order. His possession is

the possession of the Court.

21. In T. Krishnaswamy Chetty (supra)

Madras High Court had laid five

principles which can be described as

“panch sadachar” of our Courts

exercising equity jurisdiction in

appointing Receivers. Relevant

paragraph no. 13 of the judgment is

extracted here as under;

“13. The five principles which can be

described as the ‘panch sadachar’ of

our Courts exercising equity

jurisdiction in appointing receivers are

as follows:

(1) The appointment of a receiver

pending a suit is a matter resting in the

discretion of the Court. The discretion

is not arbitrary or absolute: it is a

sound and judicial discretion, taking

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 15 of 62

into account all the circumstances of

the case, exercised for the purpose of

permitting the ends of justice, and

protecting the rights of all parties

interested in the controversy and the

subject-matter and based upon the fact

that there is no other adequate remedy

or means of accomplishing the desired

objects of the judicial proceeding: —

‘Mathusri v. Mathusri,’ 19 Mad 120

(PC) (Z5); — ‘Sivagnanathammal v.

Arunachallam Pillai’, 21 Mad LJ 821

(Z6); — ‘Habibullah v. Abtiakallah’,

AIR 1918 Cal 882 (Z7); — ‘Tirath

Singh v. Shromani Gurudvvara

Prabandhak Committee’, AIR 1931

Lah 688 (Z8); — ‘Ghanasham v.

Moraba’, 18 Bom 474 (Z9); — ‘Jagat

Tarini Dasi v. Nabagopal Chaki’, 34

Cal 305 (Z10); — ‘Sivaji Raja Sahib v.

Aiswariyanandaji’, AIR 1915 Mad 926

(Z11); — ‘Prasanno Moyi Devi v. Beni

Madhab Rai’, 5 All 556 (Z12); —

‘Sidheswari Dabi v. Abhayeswari

Dabi’, 15 Cal 818 (Z13); — ‘Shromani

Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee,

Amritsar v. Dharam Das’, AIR 1925

Lah 349 (Z14); — ‘Bhupendra Nath v.

Manohar Mukerjee’, AIR 1924 Cal

456 (Z15).

(2) The Court should not appoint a

receiver except upon proof by the

plaintiff that prima facie he has very

excellent chance of succeeding in the

S. suit. — ‘Dhumi v. Nawab Sajjad Ali

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 16 of 62

Khan’, AIR 1923 Lah 623 (Z16); —

‘Firm of Raghubir Singh Jaswant

v. Narinjan Singh’, AIR 1923 Lah 48

(Z17); — ‘Siaram Das v. Mohabir

Das’, 27 Cal 279 (Z18); —

‘Muhammad Kasim v. Nagaraja

Moopanar’, AIR 1928 Mad 813 (Z19);

— ‘Banwarilal Chowdhury v. Motilal’,

AIR 1922 Pat 493(Z20).

(3) Not only must the plaintiff show a

case of adverse and conflicting claims

to property, but, he must show some

emergency or danger or loss

demanding immediate action and of

his own right he must be reasonably

clear and free from doubt. The element

of danger is an important

consideration. A

Court will not act on possible danger

only; the danger must be great and

imminent demanding immediate relief.

It has been truly said that a Court will

never appoint a receiver merely on the

ground that it will do no harm. —

‘Manghanmal Tarachand v.

Mikanbai’, AIR 1933 Sind 231 (Z21);

— ‘Bidurramji v. Keshoramji’, AIR

1939 Oudh 61 (Z22); — ‘Sheoambar

Ban v. Mohan Ban’, AIR 941 Oudh 328

(Z23).

(4) An order appointing a receiver will

not be made where it has the effect of

depriving a defendant of a ‘de facto’

possession since that might cause

irreparable wrong. If the dispute is as

to title only, the Court very reluctantly

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 17 of 62

disturbs possession by receiver, but if

the property is exposed to danger and

loss and the person in possession has

obtained it through fraud or force the

Court will interpose by receiver for the

security of the property. It would be

different where the property is shown

to be ‘in medio’, that is to say, in the

enjoyment of no one, as the Court can

hardly do wrong in taking possession:

it will then be the common interest of

all the parties that the Court should

prevent a scramble as no one seems to

be in actual lawful enjoyment of the

property and no harm can be done to

anyone by taking it and preserving it

for the benefit of the legitimate who

may prove successful. Therefore, even

if there is no allegation of waste and

mismanagement the fact that the

property is more or less ‘in medio’ is

sufficient to vest a Court with

jurisdiction to appoint a receiver. —

‘Nilambar Das v. Mabal Behari’, AIR

1927 Pat 220 (Z24); — ‘Alkama Bibi

v. Syed Istak Hussain’, AIR 1925 Cal

970 (Z25); — ‘Mathuria Debya v.

Shibdayal Singh’, 14 Cal WN 252

(Z26); — ‘Bhubaneswar Prasad v.

Rajeshwar Prasad’, AIR 1948 Pat 195

(Z27). Otherwise a receiver should not

be appointed in supersession of a bone

fide possessor of property in

controversy and bona fides have to be

presumed until the contrary is

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 18 of 62

established or can be indubitably

inferred.

(5) The Court, on the application of a

receiver, looks to the conduct of the

party who makes the application and

will usually refuse to interfere unless

his conduct has been free from blame.

He must come to Court with clean

hands and should not have disentitled

himself to the equitable relief by

laches, delay, acquiescence etc.”

22. The discretion given to the Court

has to be exercised with great care and

caution. It cannot in a routine manner

appoint Receiver and continue the

management of the temple/trust

through such appointments. Every

endeavour should be there to get the

dispute decided at the earliest without

prolonging it and running the entire

show through the Receivers.

23. The present case is an example

where the original suit was filed in the

year 1999 claiming relief of permanent

injunction restraining defendants from

interfering in management and

running of the temple. The suit is

pending for last 25 years, and report of

District Judge reveals that only

plaintiff evidence has taken place. No

effort has been made by court

concerned to expedite the matter and

decide it. Only application for

appointment of Receiver has been

considered on number of occasions

and the temple trust is being run

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 19 of 62

through Receivers. The entire dispute

hingesm around the appointment of

Receiver. Earlier this Court in the year

2021 had set aside the order of court

below appointing an advocate as

Receiver and remanded back the

matter for consideration afresh.

24.The officer against whom contempt

has been alleged has now proceeded to

appoint a Seven Member Committee of

Receivers which includes three

advocates. The order dated 28.03.2023

frustrates the provision of Order XL

Rule 1 C.P.C.

25. In the garb of provisions of Order

XL Rule 1 C.P.C., the Courts cannot

prolong litigation and run a

temple/trust or manage any suit

property through Receiver without

making any effort to decide the lis. 25

long years have elapsed and only

plaintiff evidence has taken place.

Successive litigations have come to

this Court only questioning the very

legality of appointment of Receiver.

The suit is proceeding at snail pace.

There is no effort either on the part of

the court below or the Receiver who

has been appointed to get the suit

decided. Rule 1(d) of Order XL clearly

provides that all powers, such as,

bringing and defending suits and for

realisation, management, protection,

preservation and improvement of the

property, collection of rents and profits

thereto, the application and disposal of

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 20 of 62

such rents and profits and the

execution of documents are all

conferred upon the Receiver.

26.It appears that the Receiver

appointed by the Court made no effort

to get the suit decided. His only interest

is to continue as a Receiver and

control the entire administration of the

temple.

The instant contempt application at the

behest of Devendra Kumar Sharma

clearly reveals that he has only moved

an impleadment application in the suit

of 1999 to be impleaded as a party and

has applied to be appointed as a

Receiver which has not been

considered by court below.

27. The averment made in the contempt

application by the applicant and

submission of his counsel reveals his

intention to become a Receiver. It is not

only the interest of the applicant but

also of other persons to continue as a

Receiver in the temples of District-

Mathura without there being any

adjudication to the civil litigation.

28. The list of eight temples placed by

District Judge demonstrates that,

Radha Vallabh Mandir, Vrindavan;

Dauji Maharaj Mandir, Baldeo;

Nandkila Nand Bhawan Mandir,

Gokul; Mukharbind, Goverdhan;

Danghati, Goverdhan; Anant Shri

Bhibhushit, Vrindavan and Mandir

Shree Ladli Ji Maharaj, Barsana are

all under the grip of Receivers and

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 21 of 62

most of them are managed by

practising advocates of Mathura.

29. Now, time has come when all these

temples should be freed from the

clutches of practising advocates of

Mathura Court and Courts should

make every endeavour to appoint, if

necessary, a

Receiver who is connected with the

management of a temple and has some

religious leaning towards the deity. He

should also be well versed with the

Vedas and Shastras. Advocates and

people from district administration

should be kept away from the

management and control of these

ancient temples. Effort should be made

for disposing of the suit, involving

temple disputes at the earliest and

matter should not be lingered for

decades.

30. From perusal of list of pending

cases provided by District Judge,

Mathura, it appears that oldest of the

suit being Original Suit No. 94 of 1923

of Dauji Maharaj Mandir was decided

by a compromise decree on

15.10.1924. However, on a regular

misc. application filed before court

below, a Receiver has been appointed

and the matter is being continued and

the temple is being managed by a

Receiver. The court below should make

every endeavour to decide the misc.

application which is pending therein

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 22 of 62

and not run the temple through a

Receiver.

31. The present case which was filed

on 10.05.1999 till date has not been

decided despite 25 years having

elapsed. The court below is requested

to expedite the matter and proceed to

decide the same without wasting any

time in appointment of Receiver and

continuing the management through

them. The order dated 28.03.2023

passed by Civil Judge (Senior

Division), Mathura appointing a Seven

Member Committee is liable to be set

aside as it is not based on any sound

principle of law. The court below is

expected to comply the order passed by

writ Court on 23.11.2021 in Matters

under Article 227 No. 4468 of 2021

and decide the application for

Receiver in consonance with

provisions of Order XL Rule 1 making

every effort keeping away the

advocates from the said responsibility.

32. Considering the facts and

circumstances of the case, this Court

requests the District Judge, Mathura to

take personal pain and inform his

officers about this order and also make

every endeavour to conclude the civil

disputes regarding temples and trusts

of District-Mathura as expeditiously

as possible.

33. Prolonging the litigation is only

creating further disputes in the temples

and leading to indirect involvement of

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 23 of 62

practising advocates and district

administration in the temples, which is

not in the interest of the people having

faith in Hindu religion.”………...

5. Having regard to the above observations, it

appears that the issues of Temple administration,

and the appointment of Receivers in the suits

pertaining to the Temple administration, have

become most difficult conundrum for the Courts and

very lucrative court proceedings for the Advocates

in the State of Uttar Pradesh, especially in the

District Mathura.

6. It may be noted that the Courts, which are

considered to be the temples of justice, cannot be

permitted to be used or misused for the benefit of a

group of people, who would have vested interest in

prolonging the litigations. Nobody should be

permitted to abuse or misuse the process of law

under the guise of prolonged litigations in the

Court.

7. Having regard to the state of affairs narrated by

the High Court in its impugned order, it is directed

that the Principal District Judge, District Court at

Mathura shall submit a Report with regard to the

following, through the Registrar (Nazir) of the

District Court, so as to reach to this Court on or

before 19.12.2024;

i. List of Temples in the District of

Mathura in respect of which the

litigations are pending and in which

the Receivers appointed by the Courts.

ii. Since when such litigations are

pending and the status of such

proceedings.

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 24 of 62

iii. The names and status of the

persons, particularly of the Advocates

appointed by the Courts as Receivers.

iv. The remuneration, if any, being paid

to the Receivers appointed in such

proceedings.

8. Issue notice, returnable on 19.12.2024.

9. Registry is directed to send a copy of this Order

to the concerned Principal District Judge, District

Court Mathura.”

Accordingly, this Court directed that the Principal District Judge,

District Court at Mathura shall submit a Report with regard to

(i) List of Temples in the District of Mathura in respect of which

the litigations are pending and in which the Receivers appointed

by the Courts; (ii) since when such litigations are pending and the

status of such proceedings; (iii) the names and status of the

persons, particularly of the Advocates appointed by the Courts as

Receivers, and (iv) the remuneration, if any, being paid to the

Receivers appointed in such proceedings.

7. Further, several interim applications came to be filed by

interested parties for permission to intervene and to be heard in

the present case. Vide order dated 29.01.2025, this Court

permitted the State of Uttar Pradesh/Respondent No. 4 to

intervene, upon an application highlighting the following issues:

“3. The applicant submits that the applicant is

concerned with poor facilities at most of the Temple

sites particularly in the Braj region which include

Vrindavan, Govardhan, Bandeo, Barsana, Matth,

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 25 of 62

etc. The applicant is also concerned with the rising

cases of untoward incidents of stampedes, law and

order, etc. at the Temple sites. There is an emergent

need to create better facilities for the devotees

which would involve creation of infrastructure at

the Temple sites besides also creating an effective

and transparent management of the Temples.

4. The applicant submits that the State of Uttar

Pradesh has already enacted The Uttar Pradesh

Braj Planning and Development Board Act, 2015

and has constituted Braj Planning and

Development Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the

Board’)…

5. This Board is thus formed and constituted for the

purpose of preparing and implementing plans to be

in conformity with the Brij Culture and Architecture

in the Braj region. The Board is thus a body which

is empowered to do all that is needed to preserve the

rich heritage culture of the Braj region.

…

8. This Hon'ble Court has further noted that the

District Judge, Mathura has placed a further list of

eight Temples which explains that Radha Vallabh

Mandir, Vrindavan; Dauji Maharaj Mandir,

Baldeo; Nandkila Nand Bhawan Mandir, Gokul;

Mukharbind, Goverdhan; Danghati, Goverdhan;

Anant Shri Bhibhushit, Vrindavan and Mandir

Shree Ladli Ji Maharaj, Barsana are all under the

grip of Receivers and most of them are managed by

practising Advocates of Mathura. The present

Special Leave Petition deals with the issue of

Receiverships being appointed by the Civil Courts

who have been interested only in the delays of the

proceedings for their extraneous reasons. It is

submitted that it is in these circumstances that the

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 26 of 62

role of State Government becomes pivotal in

ensuring early resolution of the present problem.

…

11. The applicant submits that one of the holiest and

sacred Temples in the Braj region is Shree Banke

Behari Temple at Vrindavan. This is one of the most

holiest, famous and pious temples of Krishna which

is stated to have been constructed sometime in

1864. This Temple holds immense spiritual

significance and the Temple attracts large crowd of

devotees which most of the time leads to untoward

incidents and even deaths. There are serious issues

of crowd management besides provision for basic

amenities for the devotees in and around the

Temple. This 162 year old temple is spread over on

a limited area of 1200 sq.ft only. On an average,

number of devotees who visit Temple are about 40

to 50 thousands per day and during the weekends

and some holidays, the number go beyond 1.5 Lakhs

to 2.5 Lakhs per day. During festival and auspicious

days such as Janamashtmi, Raksha Bandhan,

Sharad Purnima, etc., the number of devotees cross

figure of 5 Lakh in number.

12. The applicant submits that even with respect to

this temple, a Civil Judge (JD)/ Munsif, Mathura is

acting as an administrator and is managing the

affairs of the Temple since the year 2016. The

temple was the site of an unfortunate stampede in

the year 2022, resulting in the death and injuries of

devotees. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.

1509 of 2022 came to be filed before the Hon’ble

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad seeking

directions to ensure public order in and around the

Temple of Shri Bankey Behari. The Hon’ble High

Court required the State Government to submit a

plan/ scheme for the development of the entire area.

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 27 of 62

The applicant prepared and submitted a Scheme in

the said proceedings for development of the temple

area as a Corridor with the purchase of about 5

Acres of land around the Temple for facilitating

Darshan and Pooja by the Devotees. For this, the

State Government proposed that the Court may

permit utilization of the Temple funds so that the

land so purchased for the purpose of Temple

remains to be the ownership of the Temple/ deity. It

is submitted that it would be necessary that such

land is purchased by the Temple management as it

would allow the Temple management to have

complete control of the entire Temple premises

without any outside interference.

…

14. The Applicant submits that if the present

Application is allowed, it will bring on record the

Scheme for Shri Banke Bihari Temple, to make

provisions for basic amenities and facilities

including parking area, etc. and create a corridor

on the lines of the corridor made in respect of Kashi

Vishwanath Temple at Varanasi.”

(emphasis supplied)

8. Further, this Court also heard an intervention application

filed by Shri Dilip Kumar Sharma/Respondent No. 5, who is also

the Defendant in the Civil Suit before the Trial Court, wherein it

was stated:

“4. That Applicant herein being a duly elected

Secretary of Shri Giri Raj Sevak Samiti is a

necessary party. However, the Petitioner with

ulterior motives has neither made the Applicant nor

the Sri Giriraj Sewak Samiti a party to the present

SLP wherein Petitioner seeks a relief that an

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 28 of 62

advocate be appointed as a receiver of the Sri

Giriraj Sewak Samiti. The Applicant’s name though

finds mentioned in the synopsis of the instant SLP

as a Defendant in the main Suit being Original Suit

No. 332 of 1999, the Petitioner purposefully did not

make the Applicant a party so that several facts

which are crucial for the adjudication of the present

matter may not come to light before this Hon’ble

Court.”

Vide order dated 06.02.2025, this Court permitted the

applicant/Respondent No. 5 to intervene and be heard in the

present case.

9. Submissions by the Appellant

9.1 Learned Counsel for the Appellant has strongly urged

before us that the directions given by the High Court is contrary

to law and prays for the same to be set aside.

9.2 It is vehemently submitted before us that the High Court

failed to consider the application of contempt before it, and

observe that the same is impermissible and without basis as there

is no contempt committed in the present case. This is because the

Trial Court (i) appointed a fresh Receiver, and (ii) provided an

opportunity to be heard to all the parties. (Reliance placed on

Sudhir Vasudeva, Chairman & Managing Director, Oil and

Natural Gas Corporation Limited & Ors. v. M. George

Ravishekaran & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 373, para 19).

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 29 of 62

9.3 That as per Order XL of the CPC, there is no statutory bar

against appointing advocates as Receivers. Their legal expertise

is beneficial in managing complex legal and administrative issues

associated with temple affairs. For instance, Order XL Rule 1(d)

of the CPC provides the kind of power that can be conferred upon

the Receiver, such as defending suits for the realisation and

management of the property.

9.4 That the High Court’s order creates an unreasonable and

arbitrary classification between individuals devoted to the temple

with religious knowledge and practicing advocates, violating the

constitutional guarantee of equality before the law under Article

14 of the Constitution. It is argued that the administration and

management of a temple and full devotion and dedication to the

temple are two distinct things which need to be separated from

each other. A person’s religious beliefs and their devotion and

dedication is personal to them and its expression varies from

person to person. It is baseless to gauge and relate a person's

management competence with his/her beliefs and their ability to

understand the religious texts.

9.5 That the High Court failed in not considering that the

omnibus allegations such as an advocate’s vested interest in

keeping litigation pending and therefore them not being a right

fit to be Receivers are both unsubstantiated and legally unsound.

However, an advocate is more capable than anyone else to

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 30 of 62

function as a neutral party and have a deep understanding of the

administrative issues.

10. Submissions by the Respondent No. 1 and

Respondent No. 2

10.1 Mr. Kumar Mihir, AOR, Learned Counsel for the

Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2, has first attempted to

provide a historical background to the Giriraj temple. It is

submitted that the Danghati Temple, Govardhan is a privately

owned temple which was founded by one Sakta Ram baba, a

local Godhaniya brahmin, who was survived by four sons

namely, Udho, Madho, Narayan and Murli and the lineage

continues till date and each lineage of the said sons is known as

‘Thok’. As per the byelaws of the Giriraj Samiti, each ‘Thok’ was

entitled to elect members for representation in Committee. This

committee of Management, in-turn, was empowered to elect 6

posts i.e. Sabhapati, Up-Sabhapati, Pradhan Matri, Up-Mantri,

Treasurer and Temple Manager, for a term of 3 years, pertinently

the byelaws provided that the except for the local brahmins of the

aforesaid ‘Thoks’, no other person would be the member of the

general body.

10.2 It is submitted that the Appellant herein lacks any locus

standi to file the present appeal. That the Impugned Order dated

27.08.2024, passed by the High Court, has been duly complied

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 31 of 62

with by the Trial Court through its order dated 12.09.2024, as one

Sh. Krishna Kumar Sharma (Sewayat) has been appointed as the

caretaker. It is further submitted that the order dated 28.03.2023

through which the Appellant was appointed as one of the

members of the committee managing the affairs of the temple,

has already been set aside by the High Court vide the Impugned

Order. Consequently, the Appellant’s appointment as a

committee member stands nullified, rendering the present appeal

infructuous.

10.3 That the very essence of appointing a receiver/caretaker is

to ensure that the temple's management is in the hands of

someone well-versed in its traditions and practices. A practicing

advocate cannot adequately devote time to the administration and

management of a religious institution. Given the intricate

religious and customary practices associated with the temple, the

need for a skilled and knowledgeable caretaker is paramount.

10.4 It is further argued that the present Receiver is ineligible,

and there is a need for an impartial custodian. Despite the

appointment of the present receiver, the suit is still at the stage of

recording the evidence of Plaintiff's Witness No. 1. The High

Court has emphasized the necessity of appointing a receiver who

not only has religious affinity towards the deity but is also

knowledgeable in the Vedas and Shastras. While the present

receiver is the son of the Vice-President of the Respondent

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 32 of 62

No. 5's Committee faction, as such he holds a vested interest in

the ongoing litigation as well. It is submitted that a receiver is a

representative of the Court and he must be an independent

custodian and where the question of managing a temple is

concerned such person should also have an understanding of the

temple's management. Given the receiver's vested interest, his

appointment is legally untenable and requires reconsideration,

which has been challenged by the Respondent No. 1 before the

Trial Court in Appeal No. 90/2024 titled ‘Devendra Kumar

Sharma vs Giriraj Sewak Samiti & Ors.’.

10.5 Respondent Nos. 1-2 belong to the 'Sewayat Samaj' and

are from Narayan and Udho thok respectively. It is jointly

proposed by them that either of them be appointed as Caretaker

of the temple subject to the orders of this Hon'ble Court as being

lifelong adherents of the temple's customs, Respondent Nos. 1-2

possess an intimate understanding of its traditions and religious

significance. It is also submitted that appointing a person who

lacks familiarity with the temple's religious practices would

endanger the trust and faith of the devotees. Additionally, due to

appointment of Receivers who are unfamiliar with practices of

the temples, over 400 families of the Sewayat Samaj depend on

temple-related benefits for their livelihood related expenses, such

as Kanyadaan, Ansh Daan, pensions, scholarships, temple

development grants, and facilities for devotees, which have not

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 33 of 62

been functioning properly despite this being essential

tradition/practice of the temple.

10.6 Further, the parties have pressed for expedited proceedings

and avoidance of administrative delays.

10.7 Lastly, it has been vehemently argued that the proposal by

the State/Respondent No. 4 to appoint a caretaker is vague and

ineffective, and the same has been strongly opposed. It is argued

that the sudden interest exhibited by the State appears to be a

reactionary measure following the High Court’s observations on

the glaring issues plaguing the temples in Mathura, rather than a

well-planned administrative decision.

11. Submissions by Respondent No. 4/State of Uttar

Pradesh

11.1 Mr. Navin Pahwa, learned senior counsel for the State of

Uttar Pradesh/Respondent No. 4 has sought intervention in the

present case highlighting the glaring state of affairs in the state,

particularly, in Mathura with regard to the administration of

temples.

11.2 The State has placed an affidavit on record citing its

obligations under Article 25(2) of the Constitution read with the

judgement rendered in Mrinalini Padhi v. Union of India (2018)

7 SCC 785, and requested that the State (i) be permitted to

appoint administrators in the eight temples highlighted, and (ii)

to utilize the funds of Shri Banke Bihari Temple only to the extent

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 34 of 62

of purchase of 5 acres of land around the temple to create a

holding area.

11.3 It is argued that the Uttar Pradesh Braj Planning and

Development Board Act, 2015 came to be enacted for the

development, preservation and maintaining the Braj Heritage in

the District of Mathura. Under the Act, a Parishad has been

constituted which has the necessary expertise to administer the

temples in the region, and accordingly its services can be utilized

for appointing Administrators/Receivers for these temples.

11.4 The primary thrust of the Respondent No. 4’s argument

rests upon the dire situation of the Banke Bihari Temple in

Mathura, and the lack of proper administration and amenities

therein. The Temple is spread on a limited area of only 1200 sq.ft.

The number of devotees/visitors visiting per day is about 50,000,

of which the figure swells to about 1.5 Lakhs to 2.0 Lakhs per

day during the weekends and to a figure of almost 5 Lakhs plus

during the festival days. It is submitted that considering the

existing area, there is almost unmanageable number of devotees

who throng the Temple every day. The exigency of the situation

demands urgent and immediate remedial measures.

11.5 It has been apprised to the Court that at present, a Civil

Judge (JD), Munsif, Mathura is acting as an administrator of the

Temple since 2016. This Temple was the site of an unfortunate

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 35 of 62

stampede in the year 2022 resulting into death and injuries to

large number of devotees.

11.6 The learned senior counsel has placed on record a Scheme

for the development of the Banke Bihari Temple, which

contained a provision for the development of the temple area as

a corridor with the purchase of about 5 acres of land around the

temple to facilitate darshan and pooja by the devotees. The

infrastructure in the holding area would include the construction

of a huge parking lot, accommodation for the devotees, toilets,

security check posts and various other amenities. As per the

Report of the district administration and trusted architect, the cost

of purchase of the land was to be about Rs. 207 Crores, and the

cost of construction to be about Rs. 507 Crores. The State further

submits that the temple fund is currently more than Rs. 300

Crores. Accordingly, the State has filed a PIL, being No. 1509 of

2022, before the High Court seeking directions to ensure the

same.

11.7 It is further submitted that in order to ensure that the land

purchased remains in the name and ownership of the temple/

deity, the temple fund can be utilised to purchase the land. The

State has proposed to incur more than Rs. 500 Crores to develop

and construct the corridor. In relation to the same, while the High

Court has accepted the Scheme it has refused to permit the State

to utilize the temple funds.

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 36 of 62

11.8 The learned senior counsel relies on the judgement in the

case of Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath Temple,

Varanasi and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (1997) 4

SCC 606, wherein this Court upheld the validity of the Kashi

Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983 and reaffirmed the delicate

balance between religious freedom and state regulation.

11.9 That under Article 142 of the Constitution, this Court has

the power to do complete justice and give directions even in

respect of matters which was not directly under consideration or

directly impugned before this Court. (Reliance placed on Rajeev

Suri v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors. (2022) 11 SCC 1).

12. Submissions by Respondent No. 5/Dilip Kumar Mishra

12.1 Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned senior counsel for the

Respondent No. 5 has sought intervention in the present case

highlighting the misuse of the temples that have fallen into the

hands of a Receiver that have vested interest in prolonging

litigation.

12.2 That the election of Defendant No.1/Respondent No. 5

was held and has been recognised under section 25 of Societies

Registration Act, vide Order dated 11.02.2000 by the statutory

Prescribed Authority. The challenge to the said order has been

dismissed by the High Court, including the recall application.

The election of the present Respondent No. 5 has attained

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 37 of 62

finality, however despite that, the original Plaintiff in the suit, and

the stranger Advocates/Receivers have continued to prolong the

litigation to subserve their private agenda. Moreover, there are

more than 3,500 Applications filed by strangers to the Suit related

to managerial works of the temple. Further, subsequent elections

have been regularly held in the Society managing the Shri Thakur

Giriraj Ji Temple and a duly elected body exists for management

and administration of the temple.

12.3 That suits challenging the election of a duly elected body

are barred in view of statutory remedy available under section 25

of Societies Registration Act which empowers the prescribed

authority for that purpose. The present suit is continuing for

almost 25 years and judicial officials/receivers/advocates as

Receivers have been appointed with respect to the temple in the

garb of meeting the requirements of Order XL Rule 1 of CPC.

The High Court in contempt jurisdiction has expressed its strong

displeasure with respect to such appointments.

12.4 That the request of the State of Uttar Pradesh to be able to

administer the temples ought to be rejected as it has always

maintained the stand that all temple management committees

have the fundamental right under Article 25 to manage and

administer the temples/deities, and there is no enactment

empowering the State of UP to take over the administration and

management of Religious Endowment or Trusts, whether

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 38 of 62

temporarily or permanently. (Reliance placed on DR

Subramanian Swamy v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (2014) 5

SCC 75).

12.5 The following suggestions have been placed on record for

the expeditious end to the prolonged litigation:

“i. Time bound steps must be taken to return the

administration and management of the 197 temples

wherever judicial officers or advocates, or other

persons are appointed as Receivers as per the

report furnished to this Hon'ble Court and the

Hon'ble High Court;

ii. Wherever the elections have taken place and the

temple management Trusts or Societies are

statutorily recognized, including U/s 25 of the

Societies Registration Act, in the recent past, i.e.,

within the last 3 years, which includes the election

of Sri Dilip Kumar Sharma/ Defendant No. 1/

Respondent No.5, shall be handed over the accounts

and charge of the temple (Shri Thakur Giriraj Ji) by

the Receiver within 1 month;

iii. Wherever election could not take place due to a

pending litigation, fresh elections as per the

statutory requirements must be conducted, and

handover of the management by the Receiver to the

elected body must be ensured.

iv. For the effective implementation of the above

directions (i) to (iii), a special 3 member committee

may be appointed by this Hon'ble Court headed by

an Hon'ble Retired Judge, and consisting of the

statutorily Prescribed Authority under the Societies

Registration Act, and one eminent person of the

region who is familiar with the religious functions

of the temples in the area, which shall ensure that

the above directions are carried out in a time bound

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 39 of 62

manner of two months from the date of formation of

the Committee.

v. The temple management committees, being a

statutory and primary stakeholder, will duly interact

with the State, which in mutual consultation will

evolve suitable schemes for development of the

heritage and tourist infrastructure in the Braj area

in strict accordance with the provisions of the U.P.

Braj Planning and Development Board Act, 2015.”

Discussion and Analysis

13. We have given our careful consideration to the

submissions made on both sides of the bar, and by the

intervenors. We have perused the materials placed before us,

including the several reports as to the pending litigations across

temples in the region. Mathura is a place where Lord Krishna (an

Avatar of Lord Vishnu) is said to have been born over 5000 years

ago in a prison cell because his parents were held captive by King

Kansa. Vrindavan, which is a few kilometres away from

Mathura, is a pilgrimage destination of immense and spiritual

significance. Lord Krishna spent his early years in Vrindavan and

where he performed the Raas Leela with Gopis, lifted the

Govardhan Parbat and his flute was heard by everyone in

Vrindavan. Bhagwat Puran and Mahabharata describes Lord

Krishna's divine acts and teachings.

14. In Vrindavan and Mathura, there are large numbers of

temples of Vaishnav Sampradayas, including the Banke Bihari Ji

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 40 of 62

temple, Shree Krishna Janam Bhoomi, Prem Mandir, Radha

Raman temple, Govindji temple and the list is long and all the

temples are of great significance.

15. Mathura and Vrindavan, being historical cities, have found

their descriptions in most of the religious scriptures and are

visited by millions of people every year. There is a great rush of

pilgrims to visit the historical temples and to seek blessings of

Lord Krishna and other deities. Mathura and Vrindavan both,

keeping in view of the influx of devotees, need wider roads,

parking spaces, Dharamshalas, hospitals and other public

amenities. The Trust formed by the State of Uttar

Pradesh/Respondent No. 4 is already doing a great job for the

development of Mathura and Vrindavan corridor, and the Act

enacted by the Uttar Pradesh Legislature, i.e. The Uttar Pradesh

Braj Planning and Development Board Act, 2015, provides for

development of both the cities keeping in view their historic

importance. The development of Mathura and Vrindavan cannot

be done by parties individually, let it be the various trusts, which

are managing the temples, or even by the Government. It has to

be a collective effort by the Government, Trusts, people of

Mathura and Vrindavan and other agencies in order to achieve a

peaceful and spiritual journey for all pilgrims visiting these holy

sites. The Yamuna river which is considered a Goddess in

Hinduism and revered as sister of Yama, the God of death, also

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 41 of 62

requires attention as Yamuna Ji is believed to be purifying and a

dip in its water is said to cleanse one’s sins. The Kashi Ghat and

Vishram Ghat requires to be expanded and renovated. Similarly,

the lake of flowers i.e. Kusum Sarovar which is located near

Govardhan Parbat also requires beautification. In short, there is a

great work which has to be done to ensure that the pilgrims going

to Mathura and Vrindavan are able to seek blessings of Lord

Krishna and other Gods and Goddesses without any discomfort.

16. It is suffice to say that the buck does not stop at the issue

raised in the present SLP relating to the eligibility of a receiver

for Sri Giriraj Temple, Govardhan, Mathura. The fact that the

Civil Suit has been pending for over 25 years, with only

receiver’s running the show, goes to show that the issue of

maladministration runs deep and wide. During the hearings, we

have been apprised by Intervenor/Respondent No. 4 that other

temples in the belt, including the Shri Banke Bihari Temple, have

been facing severe administrative issues of crowd management

and it is being administered by a civil judge.

17. It pains this Court to take notice of the fact that the temple

was a site of an unfortunate stampede in 2022, caused due to the

lack of infrastructure that can support the large crowd of devotees

that visit the temple brimming with bhakti to offer their prayers.

We have been apprised of the fact that the High Court of

Judicature at Allahabad is currently seized of Public Interest

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 42 of 62

Litigation No. 1509 of 2022, which was filed seeking directions

in the aftermath of the stampede. While the High Court has

accepted the State of Uttar Pradesh’ scheme for the development

of the area around the temple, it has refused to permit the State

to utilize the Temple fund for the purpose of purchase of the land

around the Temple premises by observing that the said issue is

not yet adjudicated. The order dated 08.11.2013 passed in PIL

No. 1509 of 2022 reads as under:

“1. The instant writ (PIL) has been filed inter-

alia to ensure public order in and around the Temple

of "Shree Banke Behari" situate at Mohalla

Beharipura, Vrindavan, District Mathura. The

petition espouses the need for preparation of a

proper scheme for management and upkeep of Shri

Thakur Banke Behari Ji Maharaj Temple so that the

devotees can have easy access and proper darshan

of the deity Shri Thakur Ji. The petition asserts that

on normal days, the average number of devotees

who visit the Temple are about 40 to 50 thousands

per day and on weekends like Saturday, Sunday and

on some holidays, the number swells to 1.5 lacs to

2.5 lacs per day. On festival days and auspicious

days, the number of devotees visiting the Temple for

Darshan of Thakur Ji is about 5 lacs per day. The

approach roads to the Banke Behari Temple are

very narrow, congested and incapable of

accommodating large crowds and facilitate free

movement. The narrow lanes have been encroached

upon and unauthorized constructions including

guest houses, shops selling Bhog for Thakur Ji,

Vastra and other items for Thakur Ji have

mushroomed hampering the free movement of the

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 43 of 62

devotees, who comprise of young and old as also

children. The gatherings are unmanageable and

untoward incident sometimes leading to death

occur often.

2. The writ (PIL) refers to a Scheme of

Management framed under the decree drawn

consequent to the judgment dated 31.3.1939

rendered in Original Suit No. 156 of 1938. The suit

was instituted amongst Goswamis who perform

Sevas of the deity classified as Raj Bhog, Shayan

Bhog and Shringar Bhog. The writ (PIL) asserts

that the Scheme of Management under the decree

provides for setting up of a Committee of

Management which shall perform the

administrative functions, however, the Committee of

Management as conceived under the decree is not

functioning and the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/Munsif,

Mathura is acting in the capacity of receiver and

managing the administrative affairs of the Temple.

3. The writ (PIL) further asserts that on account

of huge gathering of the devotees for Darshan there

is law and order problems and numerous FIRs have

been registered for theft, loot and loss of property.

Details of cases have been mentioned in the

petition. Instances of deaths of the devotees on

account of huge gathering of crowd have been

highlighted in the petition. It is vehemently

submitted that the local administration which is

duty bound to manage the gathering and ensure that

proper walking corridors to approach the Temple

are created to facilitate the devotees to have

Darshan of the deity Shri Thakur Banke Behari Ji

Maharaj, has utterly failed in its obligation. In spite

of numerous mishappenings, no steps have been

taken by the District Administration or by the State

Government itself in this regard. Learned counsel

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 44 of 62

for the petitioner, in the above realm of the

circumstances, has prayed for entertaining the writ

(PIL) and issuance of the directions prayed for.

4. The writ (PIL) has been opposed by

Goswamis who are stated to perform the Sewa in the

Temple by raising all sorts of objections i.e. non-

joinder/mis-joinder of parties, material

concealment and lack of credentials and bona fides

of the petitioner, the writ (PIL) being collusive and

filed for personal interest, PIL under Article 32 of

the Constitution of India, being Writ Petition (Civil)

No. 369 of 2004 filed for similar relief having been

dismissed reliefs claimed barred under Order 23

Rule 3-A CPC and violative of the Article 300-A of

the Constitution of India besides being violative of

the provisions of the Religious Endowment Act,

1863 and the Places of Worship Act, 1981, the

Temple being a private Temple, no interference can

be claimed in respect of its management and

upkeep.

5. The State Government has filed an

application supported by an affidavit of the Special

Secretary, Religious Affairs Department,

Government of U.P., Lucknow highlighting the

untoward incident that occurred on 20.8.2022

resulting in the death of two devotees in a stampede

inside the Temple which incident was ordered to be

inquired by an Inquiry Committee headed by Shri

Sulakhan Singh, former D.G.P., U.P. assisted by

Shri Gaurav Dayal, Commissioner, Aligarh

Division. The affidavit filed by the State

Government in substance brings out the need for

creation of better facilities for devotees, effective

management of Thakur Behari Ji Temple and proper

utilization of the Temple funds for resource creation.

The affidavit asserts that the State Government

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 45 of 62

intends to provide for social welfare of the general

public by creation of a Trust to manage the facilities

that are required to be established under the order

dated 20.12.2022 of this Court. The affidavit also

asserts that the public order would mandate

creation of new and upgraded facilities in and

around the temple inasmuch as, the buildings

surrounding the Temple area are in a dilapidated

condition which result in mishaps.

6. Several persons claiming themselves to be

Goswamis, priest (Shebait) of the Deity, Sevayats,

Sevadars or Sewadhikaris associated with the

affairs of the Temple and its management have filed

impleadment/intervention applications raising

objections to the writ (PIL) on similar grounds

enumerated here-in-before. All such applicants

have been permitted to intervene in the proceedings

by order dated

7. We have heard learned counsel for the

petitioner in support of the writ (PIL), learned

counsel for Goswamis as also learned Advocate

General along with the learned Addl. Advocate

General and the learned Chief Standing Counsel for

the State and have perused the records.

8. The Bankey Behari Temple, Vrindavan is

amongst the holiest, famous and pious Temples of

Lord Krishna in India. This Temple is stated to have

been constructed sometime in 1864 with the

contributions of Goswamis. Banke Behari Ji is

worshiped and looked after as a child. The deity is

also believed to be a combined form of Radha and

Krishna. The Temple holds immense spiritual

significance, offering a profound understanding of

the philosophy of Bhakti Yog. Devotees believe that

dedicating oneself to the path of devotion and

surrendering to the divine love of Banke Bihari Ji

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 46 of 62

leads to spiritual enlightenment and liberation. The

popularity of the Temple attracts large crowd of

devotees which most of time leads to untoward

incidents and even deaths of the devotees who come

to have a glimpse of their God. There exists eminent

and persistent need for crowd management both

outside the temple premises and inside as well.

9. From the order dated 31.8.2022, we find that

this Court had adjourned the matter as learned

State Counsel had sought time to place before the

Court the Scheme which the State proposed for

management of pilgrims in the Temple. The

subsequent order dated 18.10.2022 records that the

proposed Scheme of the State Government has been

brought on record by an affidavit sworn by Special

Secretary, Dharmarth Karya, Government of U.P.,

Lucknow dated 28.9.2022. Briefly, the Scheme

refers to development of Temple area as corridor,

with purchase of about 5 acres of land around the

Temple for facilitating Darshan and Puja by the

devotees. The Scheme records that there would be

no interference of any kind in the Puja- Archana or

Shringar carried out by the Goswamis and

whatever right they have shall be continued to be

enjoyed by them. The Scheme further mentions that

besides use of purchase of 5 acres of land around

the Temple, provisions for other facilities, such as

parking area and other public amenities shall be

provided for which the cost would be borne by the

State. The order dated 18.10.2022 further records

the factum that the Goswamis have expressed their

apprehension that the funds lying in the account of

the Deity in the Temple may be utilized for purchase

of the land of 5 acres around the Temple as proposed

by the State and strongly object to the same. They,

however, have expressed no objection in case the

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 47 of 62

land is acquired by the State on its own expenses.

However, ancient Temples in the vicinity of Bankey

Behari Ji Temple may be included in the Scheme

and preserved.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the State in

order to demonstrate the viability of the proposed

Scheme displayed 3-D video presentation before

this Court and all other affected parties during the

course of the proceedings. The counsel, however,

submitted that the proposed Scheme is being

opposed by the Goswamis even for its

implementation outside the Temple premises. This

Court had required the parties to mediate the

dispute on at least two occasions, but the mediation

proceedings were not successful. The counsel has

asserted that the Scheme and the blue prints of the

maps/drawings etc., have been got prepared by

technical experts and are entirely viable, however,

it requires the co-operation of the Goswamis and

Temple management for its effective

implementation. The State Counsel also contends

that for the construction of the proposed corridor

the co-operation of the other persons occupying the

land around the Temple is also necessary.

11. Records further reveal that on the request of

the Goswamis who perform Sewa in the Temple, the

proposed Scheme by the State Government was got

examined by a retired Judge of this Court. The

report submitted by the learned retired Judge of this

Court is on record.

12. From the order dated 18.10.2022, we find

that the exercise for getting the Scheme, proposed

by the State Government examined by a retired

Judge of this Court, was with regard to Crowd

Management in the temple and surrounding areas.

Though objections have been filed against the said

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 48 of 62

report but the same relate mainly to the Crowd

Management within the temple premises.

13. From the arguments advanced before us by

the learned counsel appearing for the Goswamis, in

opposition to the writ (PIL), in substance, we find

that the opposition is with regard to interference in

management of crowd within the temple premises.

They also apprehend that the State Government

would interfere in the management of affairs of the

Temple.

14. Learned counsel appearing for the Goswamis

have clearly expressed that they would have no

objection to the proposal of the State Government

so far as the crowd management outside the Temple

premises is carried out. Their only apprehension is

that Temples in the vicinity and places of religious

significance may be preserved.

15. We are conscious of the issues of public

importance highlighted in the instant writ (PIL)

relating to the difficulties faced by the Devotees/

visitors to the Temple. We are also conscious of the

numerous untoward incidents leading to the deaths

of the Devotees young and old on account of crowd

mismanagement that have been occurring time and

again particularly, when significant religious

festivals such as Krishna Janamastami,

Rakshabandhan, Sharad Purnima etc. take place,

on which dates the crowd is stated to be not less

than five lacs per day. The Court is also conscious

of the fact that proper Darshan of the Deity is also

at the whims and fancies of the Sevayats. The

acrimony between the Sevayats belonging to the Raj

Bhog and the Shayan Bhog often leads to difficulties

being faced by the devotees in performance of their

religious pujas. We have no doubt in our minds that

proper management of the Temples, pilgrimage

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 49 of 62

centres religious places of great importance is a

matter of public interest. These places are of

undoubted, religious, social, historical and

architectural importance, representing cultural

heritage of our country. Millions of people visit

these places not only for tourism but also for

seeking inspiration for the righteous values and for

their well being. They also make huge offerings and

donations for advancement of such values.

16. The Apex Court while considering the

difficulties faced by the visitors to Shri Jagannath

Temple at Puri and their harassment or exploitation

by the Sevaks of the Temple in the case of Mrinalini

Padhi versus Union of India reported in 2018 (7)

SCC 787 observed as under:-

"20. The issue of difficulties faced by the visitors,

exploitative practices, deficiencies in the

management, maintenance of hygiene, proper

utilization of offerings and protection of assets may

require consideration with regard to all Shrines

throughout the India, irrespective of religion

practiced in such shrines. It cannot be disputed that

this aspect is covered by List III Item 28 of the

Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India and

there is need to look into this aspect by the Central

Government, apart from State Governments."

17. In the same judgment, the Apex Court in

Paragraph 30.9 observed that difficulties faced by

the visitors, deficiencies in management,

maintenance of hygiene, appropriate utilization of

offerings and protection of assets with regard to

shrines, irrespective of religion is a matter for

consideration not only for the State Government,

Central Government but also for Courts.

18. Then again, the Apex Court in the subsequent

decision in the case of Mrinalini Padhi versus

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 50 of 62

Union of India reported in 2019 (18) SCC 1 in

Paragraph 40.6 observed as under:-

"When there is a vast congregation of people, it

becomes the Government's duty to ensure welfare,

law and order, hygiene and provide proper

amenities and sanitation facilities. The State

Government is, therefore, directed to work out and

prepare a plan in this regard. The Temple

Administration is directed to coordinate with the

Government in this regard for providing shelter

place and facilities to the pilgrims."

19. From the records, we find that the State

Government has already submitted a detail

proposal with regard to immediate, short terms and

long term suggestions for better management of

temple and its surrounding areas. The immediate

suggestions include amongst others, the increase of

temple visitation time, online registration of

devotees with time slots, Darshan through digital

screens, creation of ramps and new barricading

inside the temple etc. Short term suggestions

include creation of trust to manage the the temple

property in the absence of any management in

place, increase in the space around the temple,

structural audit of temple etc. Long term

suggestions include amongst others development of

a large corridor for better crowd management with

various facilities for the devotees, expansion of lane

surrounding the temple, development of the Ghats

near the temple so that devotees can be diverted to

these ghats for crowd management etc. Since, the

immediate and short terms suggestions relate

mainly to the internal crowd management of the

temple, we at this stage, leave the same open for

further deliberations. However, as regards the long

term suggestions for better management of the area

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 51 of 62

around the temple i.e. constructions of corridor for

better crowd management with various facilities for

the devotees, we are of the opinion that the

restrictions of public order morality and heath as

enshrined under Article 25 and 26 of the

Constitution of India would compel us to direct the

State Government to act in accordance with law for

providing letter facilities to the devotees in and

around the Temple premise. We further direct the

State Government to proceed with the

implementation of the Scheme and Plan submitted

before this Court, in accordance with law.

20. Human life cannot be put at stake just

because somebody has objection. In our opinion,

even the private Temples where devotees come for

Darshan, safety of human life is required to be

treated of utmost importance and the Government is

bound to make necessary arrangements. Under the

Constitution certain religious rights have been

protected by Article 25 and 26 but these

fundamental rights are not absolute and are subject

to maintenance of public order. These restrictions

find importance and have been specifically

mentioned in Articles 25 and 26. Furthermore, no

religious community denomination can claim that

suggestion in the interest of public order, as per

Article 25 and 26 can be destructive of their

fundamental rights. The Supreme Court in Gulam

Abbas Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 1984

(1) SCC 81 has reiterated as above.

21. We are not in agreement with the argument of

the State Counsel that for construction of the

Corridor, the funds deposited in the Bank belonging

to the Deity may be permitted to be utilized. This

amount of Rs.262.50 Crores lying in the Bank, shall

remain untouched particularly as we have not

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 52 of 62

adjudicated the inter se rights of the State viz a viz

the Sevayats (Goswami Samaj) and the Government

is free to utilize its own money for the secular

activity of facilitating public interests.

22. Considering the public importance

highlighted in the writ (PIL) coupled with the fact

that the State Government is obligated to take steps

to ensure public order in and around the Temple and

also to ensure the health and safety of the public at

large, taking note of the fact that Darshan of the

Devotees should not be hampered in any manner at

this stage, we direct as under:-

i) The State Government to proceed with the

implementation of plans and scheme submitted to

this Court, which the Court finds appropriate and

necessary in the interest of justice. We leave it open

for the State Government to take whatever steps it

deems appropriate, after consultation with the

technical experts in the field, for implementing the

Scheme. The State Government is also free to take

appropriate steps for removing the encroachment

over the approach roads (galis) to the Temple.

ii) The State Government, after implementation of

the Scheme, is expected to ensure that no further

obstructions/encroachment be allowed to come up

on the approach roads to the Temple. In the event

any such offending act is undertaken by anyone, the

Government is free to take action against such

erring persons in accordance with law.

iii) We make it clear that the Darshan of the

devotees shall not be hampered in any manner,

except for the implementation of the Scheme, during

which appropriate alternative arrangements shall

be made. The present Management along with all

the stakeholders are directed to ensure that the

Darshan of the devotees are not restricted in any

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 53 of 62

manner and by anyone. The District Authorities are

also directed to ensure strict compliance of the

above directions and any act of violation shall be

reported to this Court.

23. We place on record our appreciation for the

stand taken by the Goswami Samaj in extending

their wholehearted support in implementing the

Scheme for the benefit of devotees and members of

the general public.

24. While passing this order, we are not touching

the respective rights of the parties and such

questions are left open for consideration.

25. List this case on 31st January, 2024.”

18. In Rajeev Suri v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

(2022) 11 SCC 1, or commonly known as the ‘Central Vista

case’, this Court decided a matter in larger public interest even

though a separate court was seized of the same under Article 142

of the Constitution. This Court observed:

“518. No doubt, by way of the exclusive jurisdiction

clause in Section 29, the jurisdiction of civil Courts

is barred on these subject matters, but there is no

impact whatsoever on the jurisdiction of this Court,

being a Court of record and bestowed with original

and appellate jurisdiction including superior

powers to do complete justice under Article 142 in

special circumstances. In other words, the

jurisdiction of this Court is not controlled or guided

by the form of jurisdiction vested in NGT in terms of

the 2010 Act. The considerations before this Court

can be diverse and expansive and the moment a lis

comes before this Court, the subject matter comes

out of the ambit of limited statutory consideration

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 54 of 62

and falls in the realm of plenary constitutional

consideration - wherein the duty of the Court is to

do complete justice between the parties before it and

in public interest jurisdiction to a class of persons.

…

574. […] In any case, once a cause reaches this

Court and of this nature, the fundamental concern

of the Court is and must be not only of doing

substantial and complete justice, but also

expeditious resolution of all aspects in larger public

interest. This we must do within the constitutional

bounds. Judicial activism to this limited extent is

certainly permissible, in national interest. In doing

so, the Court would not merely exercise its power

under Article 139A while transferring the case

before itself, rather, the underlying principle at play

is the duty of this Court to do complete justice as

envisaged under Article 142 and to obviate

possibility of project of national importance being

stuck, embroiled and delayed due to engagement of

the project proponent before multiple legal

forums/proceedings.

…

578. The character of a public interest proceeding

is necessarily non-adversarial in nature and it is not

a matter of two individuals fighting against each

other at all possible forums. […]

579. The expression “complete justice” does not

contemplate a narrow view of doing justice to the

petitioners or the respondents. Rather, the principle

entails looking at the parties, their respective

positions and the subject matter/cause before it as a

whole. The Court needs to be even more vigilant and

proactive in its pursuit of complete justice when the

subject matter involves an exercise of power in rem

and considerations of public interest traverse

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 55 of 62

beyond the immediate expectations of the parties

before the Court. It is not a case where parties have

approached the Court for the vindication of

personal rights, as already noted above, and the

nature of subject matter is entirely different.”

19. As this Court is in sesin of the cause qua the administration

and safety of temples in the Braj region, it is in public interest to

decide the issue raised by Respondent No. 4/State of Uttar

Pradesh expeditiously in this Court itself. Respondent No. 4 has

placed on record the proposed scheme for development for the

Temple. Upon a perusal of the same and the consequent

assessments, it has been ascertained that 5 acres of land around

the temple is to be acquired and developed by constructing

parking lots, accommodation for the devotees, toilets, security

check posts and other amenities. As observed by the High Court

vide order dated 08.11.2023, the acquisition of land around the

temple and the consequent development project is crucial to

ensure the safety of the pilgrims.

20. The State of Uttar Pradesh has undertaken to incur costs of

more than Rs.500 Crores to develop the corridor. However, they

propose to utilise the Temple funds for purchasing the land in

question; which was denied by the High Court vide order dated

08.11.2023. We permit the State of Uttar Pradesh to implement

the Scheme in its entirety. The Banke Bihari Ji Trust is having

fixed deposits in the name of the Deity/Temple. In the considered

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 56 of 62

opinion of this Court, the State Government is permitted to utilize

the amount lying in the fixed deposit to acquire the land

proposed. However, the land acquired for the purposes of

development of the temple and corridor shall be in the name of

the Deity/Trust. The order dated 08.11.2023 passed by the High

Court of Allahabad in Public Interest Litigation deserves to be

modified to the aforesaid extent and it is modified accordingly.

21. We now shift our attention to the issue arising out of the

present SLP in relation to the appointment of receivers.

Accordingly, Order XL Rule 1 is reproduced here below:

“1: Appointment of receivers.--

(1) Where it appears to the Court to be just and

convenient the Court may by order--

(a) appoint a receiver of any property, whether

before or after decree;

(b) remove any person from the possession or

custody of the property;

(c) commit the same to the possession, custody or

management of the receiver, and

(d) confer upon the receiver all such powers, as to

bringing and defending suits and for the realization,

management, protection, preservation and

improvement of the property, the collection of the

rents and profits thereof, the application and

disposal of such rents and profits, and the execution

of documents as the owner himself has, or such of

those powers as the Court thinks fit.

(2) Nothing in this rule shall authorise the Court to

remove from the possession or custody of property

any person whom any party to the suit has not a

present right so to remove.”

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 57 of 62

22. At this juncture, it is appropriate to reproduce the findings

of the High Court which have been assailed before us by the

Appellant:

“1. Receivership in the temple town of Mathura has

become the new norm. Most of the famous and

ancient temples are in the grip of legal battle,

restraining the temple trust, its Shebait and the

Committee to manage its affairs and are being run

by persons appointed by the Court as Receivers

under Order XL of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

(hereinafter called as ‘C.P.C.’).

2. Out of the list of 197 temples as provided by

District Judge, Mathura on 23.05.2024, there are

civil litigations pending of these temples situated at

Vrindavan, Govardhan, Baldeo, Gokul, Barsana,

Maath etc. The litigation ranges from the year 1923

till the year 2024. In these famous temples of

Vrindavan, Govardhan and Barasana, practising

advocates of Mathura Court have been appointed

Receivers. The interest of Receiver lies in keeping

the litigation pending. No effort is made to conclude

the civil proceedings, as the entire control of temple

administration vest in the hands of Receiver. Most

of the litigation is in respect of management of

temples and appointment of Receivers.

3. A practising lawyer cannot devote sufficient time

for the administration and management of a temple,

especially of Vrindavan and Goverdhan, which

needs skill in the temple management along with full

devotion and dedication. It has become a symbol of

status in the city of Mathura.

[…]

22. The discretion given to the Court has to be

exercised with great care and caution. It cannot in

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 58 of 62

a routine manner appoint Receiver and continue the

management of the temple/trust through such

appointments. Every endeavour should be there to

get the dispute decided at the earliest without

prolonging it and running the entire show through

the Receivers.

23. The present case is an example where the

original suit was filed in the year 1999 claiming

relief of permanent injunction restraining

defendants from interfering in management and

running of the temple. The suit is pending for last

25 years, and report of District Judge reveals that

only plaintiff evidence has taken place. No effort

has been made by court concerned to expedite the

matter and decide it. Only application for

appointment of Receiver has been considered on

number of occasions and the temple trust is being

run through Receivers. The entire dispute hinges

around the appointment of Receiver. Earlier this

Court in the year 2021 had set aside the order of

court below appointing an advocate as Receiver

and remanded back the matter for consideration

afresh.

24. The officer against whom contempt has been

alleged has now proceeded to appoint a Seven

Member Committee of Receivers which includes

three advocates. The order dated 28.03.2023

frustrates the provision of Order XL Rule 1 C.P.C.

25. In the garb of provisions of Order XL Rule 1

C.P.C., the Courts cannot prolong litigation and run

a temple/trust or manage any suit property through

Receiver without making any effort to decide the lis.

25 long years have elapsed and only plaintiff

evidence has taken place. Successive litigations

have come to this Court only questioning the very

legality of appointment of Receiver. The suit is

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 59 of 62

proceeding at snail pace. There is no effort either

on the part of the court below or the Receiver who

has been appointed to get the suit decided. Rule 1(d)

of Order XL clearly provides that all powers, such

as, bringing and defending suits and for realisation,

management, protection, preservation and

improvement of the property, collection of rents and

profits thereto, the application and disposal of such

rents and profits and the execution of documents are

all conferred upon the Receiver.

26. It appears that the Receiver appointed by the

Court made no effort to get the suit decided. His

only interest is to continue as a Receiver and control

the entire administration of the temple. The instant

contempt application at the behest of Devendra

Kumar Sharma clearly reveals that he has only

moved an impleadment application in the suit of

1999 to be impleaded as a party and has applied to

be appointed as a Receiver which has not been

considered by court below.

[…]

28. The list of eight temples placed by District Judge

demonstrates that, Radha Vallabh Mandir,

Vrindavan; Dauji Maharaj Mandir, Baldeo;

Nandkila Nand Bhawan Mandir, Gokul;

Mukharbind, Goverdhan; Danghati, Goverdhan;

Anant Shri Bhibhushit, Vrindavan and Mandir

Shree Ladli Ji Maharaj, Barsana are all under the

grip of Receivers and most of them are managed by

practising advocates of Mathura.

29. Now, time has come when all these temples

should be freed from the clutches of practising

advocates of Mathura Court and Courts should

make every endeavour to appoint, if necessary, a

Receiver who is connected with the management of

a temple and has some religious leaning towards the

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 60 of 62

deity. He should also be well versed with the Vedas

and Shastras. Advocates and people from district

administration should be kept away from the

management and control of these ancient temples.

Effort should be made for disposing of the suit,

involving temple disputes at the earliest and matter

should not be lingered for decades.

[…]

31. The present case which was filed on 10.05.1999

till date has not been decided despite 25 years

having elapsed. The court below is requested to

expedite the matter and proceed to decide the same

without wasting any time in appointment of

Receiver and continuing the management through

them. The order dated 28.03.2023 passed by Civil

Judge (Senior Division), Mathura appointing a

Seven Member Committee is liable to be set aside

as it is not based on any sound principle of law. The

court below is expected to comply the order passed

by writ Court on 23.11.2021 in Matters under

Article 227 No. 4468 of 2021 and decide the

application for Receiver in consonance with

provisions of Order XL Rule 1 making every effort

keeping away the advocates from the said

responsibility.

32. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

case, this Court requests the District Judge,

Mathura to take personal pain and inform his

officers about this order and also make every

endeavour to conclude the civil disputes regarding

temples and trusts of District-Mathura as

expeditiously as possible.

33. Prolonging the litigation is only creating further

disputes in the temples and leading to indirect

involvement of practising advocates and district

administration in the temples, which is not in the

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 61 of 62

interest of the people having faith in Hindu

religion.”

23. It is an established fact that the historical temples are old

structures; they require proper upkeep and other logistic support,

and added to the fact is that in a large number of temples,

Receivers have been appointed for decades now which was

originally intended to be a stop-gap temporary measure. It is

unfortunate that while appointing Receivers, the concerned

Courts are not keeping in mind that Mathura and Vrindavan, the

two most sacred places for Vaishnav Sampradayas and, therefore,

persons from Vaishnav Sampradayas should be appointed as

Receivers. This will give true meaning to the High Court’s

directions pertaining to persons who are having adequate

administrative experience, historical, religious, social

background and not Advocates to be appointed as Receivers.

24. Accordingly, the order dated 08.11.2023 passed by the

High Court of Allahabad in PIL No. 1509 of 2022 is modified to

the extent that the State of Uttar Pradesh/Respondent No. 4 is

permitted to utilise the temple fund in order to purchase the land

around the Temple as per the Scheme proposed, provided that the

land so acquired shall be in the name of the Deity/Trust. Further,

the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mathura is directed to comply

with the Impugned Order dated 27.08.2024, and appoint a

Receiver having relevant adequate administrative experience,

SLP (C) No. 29702 of 2024 Page 62 of 62

historical, religious and social background preferably belonging

to the Vaishnav Sampradaya. The present appeal, along with the

IAs, are disposed of in the aforementioned terms.

25. Parties to bear their own costs. Pending applications, if

any, shall stand disposed of.

……………………………………J.

[BELA M. TRIVEDI]

……………………………………J.

[SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA]

New Delhi

May 15, 2025