SC dismisses appeal of proclaimed offender

New Delhi, Jan 2 (UNI) The Supreme Court has castigated swamis/sanyasis fighting for capturing the Vadtal Gaddi in Gujarat and in the process shattering the reputation of a great majestic institution set up for propagating the teachings of the saint Swami Narayan.

The apex court dismissed the petition of a swami who has been declared a proclaimed offender in a criminal case, against Gujarat high court judgment dated March 9,2006. The High Court had dismissed the appeal of the appellant Ajendraparsadji N Pande seeking amendment in his written statement filed in the civil suit. The apex court said, "It is sad and unfortunate that the swamijis/sanyasis/members of the sangh seem to have paid their attention more to litigation that to the propagation of the teachings of Swami Narayan." A bench comprising Justices A R Lakshmanan and Altamas Kabir in a 41-page judgment also expressed their anguish over the murky state of affairs in an organisation having control over principal temples or Hari temples including the temples falling under the Vadtal Gaddi at Vadtal, Gadhada and Junagarh.

Respondents herein including Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N filed a suit in the court of civil judge, Bhavnagar against the present appellants seeking declaration that in view of the resolution dated May 11,2005 the appellant had ceased to be the Acharya of the Vadtal Gaddi and therefore he or his son or any of his supporters is not entitled to enjoy any rights or privileges in respect of Vadtal Gaddi. The plaintiffs also sought a declaration from the civil court to the effect that the appellants in the top court have no right to nominate their successors as Acharya of the Gaddi.

Several rounds of litigation took place and finally the matter reached the apex court for the second time.

The Supreme Court while dismissing the appeal of the appellants on the grounds that no amendment can be allowed once the trial has commenced unless the court is satisfied that the amendment could not be sought earlier even after due diligence noted, "If the time, energy and money spent on litigations and feuding had been spent for carrying on wishes of the founder ofd the institution, things would have reached very great and amazing heights. This situation should change." The apex court concluded by observing, "We have, therefore, to voice our anxiety in this matter and request that the system and administration should be fairly and properly bridled, to prevent recurrence or repetition of feuds, which have already to some extent shattered the reputation of this great majestic institution, which has very vast resources and assets. Therefore it is high time that proper remedial measures are taken by all concerned." The Supreme Court, however directed the trial court to proceed with the trial on priority forthwith and on day-to-day basis and dispose of the same on merits.

The apex court also ruled that for the foregoing discussions the court was of the opinion that the appeal deserved to be dismissed and the appellants are not entitled to any relief.

Senior counsel K Parasaran and Ashok Desai appeared for the respondents while S B Vakil appeared for the appellants.

Surprisingly there are differences between the appellant and his son. While the son has claimed that his father wants to transfer the seat of Acharya to him but the father, appellant no. 1 has denied the claim of his son.

UNI