The Kalighat temple: The courts step in. A Telegraph picture

The Kalighat Temple Committee has been ordered to follow the guidelines framed by the high court and the Supreme Court on the daily puja of the deity and the functioning of the temple.

Justice Girish Chandra Gupta of the high court, who issued the order on Thursday, also restrained sevaits, who take turns in performing the puja, from selling their palas to outsiders. ?The committee will be responsible for the puja if a sevait refuses to accept his pala. The committee should also ensure that the daily puja schedule is maintained properly,? the judge ruled.

He asked the committee also to find out whether the courts-framed guidelines empowered it to fix the ?notional value? of the palas.

The order followed a petition by Ashok Haldar, a sevait, who alleged that the committee had violated the guidelines. Appearing for the petitioner, Pradip Roy said that according to the earlier orders of the courts, the district judge of South 24-Parganas was the ex-officio president of the committee.

?The district judges in 1997 and 1998 had probed the functioning of the temple on their own and observed in their reports, submitted to the high court, that the temple had been taken over by a group of criminals,? he submitted.

?Most of the 700 paladars are selling their palas to outsiders and the committee is aware of this,? he alleged. ?The daily offerings, between Rs 30,000 and Rs 2.5 lakh, are not accounted for and several gold ornaments belonging to the deity have been stolen.?

He also alleged that the committee, in violation of the guidelines, had been fixing the value of the palas.

Roy sought the court?s intervention in ending the ?regular harassment of the worshippers by the pandas?.

The recommendations of the former district judges are yet to be implemented and the temple premises have turned into a ?haven for criminals?, he submitted.

Appearing for the committee, Saptangshu Basu argued that since the dispute was between ?two private parties, the high court has no jurisdiction to hear the matter?.

The judge, however, turned down the petitioner?s prayer seeking appointment of a special officer to keep a vigil on the functioning of the temple.