The Gauhati High Court has directed the Assam Government to constitute a statutory Managing Committee for the Hayagriva Madhab Temple at Hajo within one month, in accordance with Section 25-A of the Assam State Acquisition of Lands Belonging to Religious or Charitable Institutions of Public Nature Act, 1959.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Kaushik Goswami clarified that the constitution of the statutory committee would not, by itself, displace the existing management scheme framed by the Civil Court in 1908 or override lawful customary rights.
The Court was hearing a public interest litigation challenging orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, in 2013 and 2014 declining to constitute the statutory committee and take over the temple’s management in view of the existing civil court scheme.
The petitioners contended that the existing scheme had become outdated following the enactment of the 1959 Act and that a Managing Committee was required to be constituted under Section 25-A.
The High Court observed that the statutory committee’s role is limited to supervising the utilisation of government annuity and grants and verifying the relevant accounts to ensure proper financial management and maintenance of the institution. It does not confer unrestricted authority over all aspects of the temple’s affairs or transfer its entire management to the committee.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Riju Prasad Sarma v. State of Assam, (2015) 9 SCC 461, the Court reiterated that the powers of a committee constituted under Section 25-A are confined to the matters specified in the provision and do not displace established customary rights beyond the statute’s scope.
The Court held that the existence of an earlier civil court scheme could not, by itself, justify the authorities’ failure to discharge their statutory obligations. It directed the District Commissioner, Kamrup, Amingaon, to constitute the committee within one month of receiving a certified copy of the order.
The Court further clarified that the earlier scheme would continue to operate to the extent it remains legally in force, unless modified or set aside by a competent court. In case of inconsistency between the scheme and a mandatory provision of the Act, the statutory provision would prevail to the extent of that inconsistency.
The PIL was accordingly disposed of.
