Somanath Subudhi vs Administrator, Sri Jagannath Temple

This writ petition is the third attempt at getting a shop, for sale of DRY BHOGA inside Lord Jagannath Temple, allotted in favour of the Petitioner. In the first instance, the Petitioner's father had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.5006 of 2010 stating that one shop i.e. Room No. 40 was in his possession and that he had made a representation for its allotment in his favour and that the said representation be considered. Disposing of the said writ petition on 5th April, 2010 this Court passed the following order:

"Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner.

Though this writ application has filed praying for a direction to the Opposite Parties to hand over the shop room which was allotted in favour of the Petitioner to sell out Dry Bhoga inside the "Lord Jagannath Temple". The prayer is made before the Court is for consideration of his representation in Annexure-2.

We, therefore, dispose of this writ petition directing the opposite party No.2. Administrator, Sri Jagannath Temple Administration, Puri to consider the representation in Annexure-2 and to pass necessary orders on the said representation within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order.

Requisites along with copy of the writ petition be filed by day after tomorrow for communication of this order to Opposite Party No.2".

The representation was rejected on 27th August, 2010 on the ground that the very same shop room had been allotted in favour of one Bhimsen Padhi and after his death it was in possession of his son Shri Shyam Sundar Padhi and an agreement to that effect had been made way back in 1988.

For the second time, the Petitioner's father filed a writ petition i.e. W.P.(C) No.19325 of 2010 in this Court for the same relief. This was disposed of on 8th March, 2011 by the following order:

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for opposite party No.2-Administrator, Shree Jagannath Temple Administration.

The petitioner has filed this writ application challenging the action of the opposite parties in not handing over the possession of the Chhapan Bhoga shop House No.40 to the petitioner, which according to him was under his possession for a long time.

The aforesaid allegation of the petitioner has been stoutly denied by opposite Party No.2-Jagannath Temple Administration. According to learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2, the petitioner was previously a lessee in respect of the said shop room but after he became defaulter, the said shop has been leased out in favour of one Bhimsen Padhi since 1988, fact of which is disputed by the petitioner.

Since, these are all disputed facts, it cannot be decided in this proceeding.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that now the Temple Administration is going to allot certain shop rooms constructed by them. It is open to the petitioner to apply for the same and if the petitioner applies, the same shall be considered by the Opposite Parties in accordance with the rules guiding the field.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

Issue urgent certified copy.

A free copy of this order be handed over to Mr. B.N. Rath, learned counsel for Shree Jagannath Temple Administration."

After waiting for four years, the Petitioner again approached this Court by filing the present writ petition in 2015 claiming that the said shop was vacant and that the stand of the temple that it had been given to Bhimsen Padhi "is not believable because there is no such record available with the Temple Administration". Therefore, despite the above orders, the same relief is sought for in the present petition.

Pursuant to the notice issued in the matter, Mr. Subrat Satapathy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party (Jagannath Temple Administration) has pointed out that the shop room in question is no longer vacant, in fact, it was given to Bhimsen Padhi and after his death his son is in possession thereof. He further points out that there is not a single shop vacant as of now which can be given.

The Court sees no purpose being served in repeatedly asking the Petitioner's representation to be considered. Clearly on the same cause of action, there cannot be more than one writ petition. The Court sees no ground made out for interference.

The writ petition is dismissed.

.............................