Team Goemkarponn
SANGUEM: In a significant development, the Mamlatdar of Sanguem has recommended the dissolution of the executive committee of the Shri Ramanath Damodar Devasthan in Zambavali, Goa, due to its failure to submit the annual budget estimate within the stipulated timeframe.
The current committee, headed by Manjunath Dukle, has been at the center of controversy for various reasons, including its inability to adhere to the mandatory requirements set by the Devasthan Act.
According to the act, the committee was obligated to submit its accounts for the financial year 2024-2025 to Mamlatdar’s office by November 5, 2023. However, this deadline was not met, prompting severe criticism and legal action.
Prasad Ghode and Jayesh Kamat Bambolkar, who have been vocal critics of the committee, filed a complaint with Mamlatdar’s office, alleging that the committee’s failure to submit the accounts was a clear violation of the Devasthan Act.
This complaint led to a thorough investigation and subsequent hearings.
During the hearings, Advocate Paresh Gavkar, representing the temple committee, argued that the complaints filed by Ghode and Kamat Bambolkar lacked substance.
However, Advocate Rohan Desai, representing the complainants, successfully countered these arguments, highlighting the technical and legal grounds for the committee’s dissolution.
Mamlatdar Siddharth Prabhu, after reviewing the case and considering the legal implications, has recommended the dissolution of the current executive committee.
This recommendation is based on Section 44 of the Devasthan Act, which empowers the authorities to dissolve a committee if it fails to comply with the statutory requirements, including the timely submission of the budget estimate.
The recommendation has been forwarded to the South Goa District Collector’s office for further action. This move is seen as a step towards ensuring transparency and accountability in the management of the temple’s affairs.
Previously, the complainants had approached the Bombay High Court after Mamlatdar’s office initially did not take immediate action on their complaint. The High Court directed the Mamlatdar to conduct a prompt hearing on the matter, leading to the current decision.
