news details |
|
|
| Panjbhaktar temple case | | Court restrains petitioners from interfering in temple management | |
JAMMU, MAY 30
In much controversy over the installation of Mahant of Mandir Panjbakhtar Shivaalay , Principal District Judge Jammu Mr. JR Kotwal today dismissed the application filed by the petitioners Panch Dashnaam Zoonaa Akhara and others and granted temporary injunction as sought by the respondents including Parbodh Anand Bairaagi restraining interfering directly or indirectly in the management of the Shivaalay Mandir Panjbakhtar Jammu and its properties.
Court after hearing Advocate VR Wazir appearing for the petitioners (plaintiffs) and Advocate LK Sharma appearing for the respondents (Defendants) observed that petitioners do not have a prima-facie case for going for trial of the case with the contention that Mahant Shri Prem Giri was coroneted and installed as Mahant of the Mandir on April 14, 2007 as successor of late Mahant Shri Parsuram Giri, on the other hand there is strong reason to believe that the petitioners on this score have not approached the Court with clean hands and have gone to extent of manipulating the documents to show that the petitioner No 1 Akharra in assistance of petitioner no 2 Sadhoo Dharam Surakh Shini Samittee had coroneted and installed Shri Prem Giri as Mahant of the temple in place of Late Shri Parsuram Giri. On the other hand Advocate LK Sharma appearing for the respondents stated that devotees and Sanyasis in accordance with age-old tradition had appointed Shri Prabodh Anand Berragi a chela of late Shri Parsu Ram Giri as a Mahant of the Mandir on April 14, 2007 is supported with well drawn “Panchnama” passed on the same day, which besides being signed by Parbodh Anand Beraagi and number of others also records presence of a District and Sessions Judge Mr. Shakti Kumar Gupta. The Panchanama gives detailed account of the ceremonies performed and procedure adopted while appointing Mahant of the Mandir.
Principal District Judge Jammu Mr. JR Kotwal while restraining petitioners from interference in the management of the Mandir further observed that the Court must issue mandate of law so that performance of religious functions in and management of the Mandir are not adversely affected and there is no untoward incident, resulting into law and order problem. With these observations Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioners for grant of temporary injunctions and restrained the petitioners from interfering directly or indirectly in the management of the Shivaalay Mandir Panjbakhtar Jammu.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
