Team Goemkarponn
PANAJI: The Mazania of Shree Navadurga Saunsthan, Madkai, filed a suit contesting the rights of Shri Devi Navadurga Pratishthan and other respondents over the temple, and the High Court of Bombay in Goa accepted it.
Advocate Shivan Desai, speaking on behalf of the Mazania, contended during the plea hearing that the respondents—devotees and villagers—had no legal basis for bringing the lawsuit. “The plaint’s allegations were an attempt to create an illusory cause of action,” he said.
The lawsuit sought a permanent injunction prohibiting Mazania from altering the idol and a statement that the Navadurga temple should be designated as a public temple.
The Devasthan Regulations, which are really in effect in Goa, control the Temple/Devasthan. It is explicitly stated in these regulations that a Committee of Mahajans must be established to oversee the Temple’s overall administration. He presented the case to the bench of Justice Bharat Deshpande, saying, “The respondents are not Mahajan at all, but some of the villagers who formed the Trust and then filed a suit.”
He said that the temple and its deity are inextricably linked, and that the respondents’ requests for relief under Article 25 of the Constitution and other statutes were without merit. Furthermore, the Devasthan Regulations and the Compromisso (temple constitution) must be taken into consideration while evaluating the respondents’ rights with relation to the deity.
Advocate Jitendra Supekar, speaking on behalf of the respondents, retorted that they were both deity worshippers and villagers. According to him, their public trust was established to fight against the replacement of the current idol, which has been revered for ages.
“They have no claim to the Temple, but they only have faith in the idol or deity that the Defendants are attempting to replace,” he continued.
The suit was filed seven years ago, according to Adv. Supekar, who also pointed out that the devotees had continuously resisted the decision to replace the deity because they felt it was capricious and unwarranted.
While overturning the earlier trial court ruling—the trial court rejected Mazania’s plea to have the plaint rejected—the High Court granted Mazania’s request.
However, in order to give the respondents time to appeal, the court has postponed its judgment for six weeks.
