Months before the Guyana Sevashram Sangha and its trustees moved to the court to have Swami Shivashankarananda removed from its Cove and John ashram, the religious teacher had successfully secured an interim order blocking any such attempt.
That order was issued by Justice Roxane George in June, while the Hindu organisation filed its court action earlier this month.
In court documents seen by this newspaper, Swami Shivashankarananda is listed as one of four plaintiffs. The others are the Incorporated Trustees of the Guyana Sevashram, Cove and John Ashram, and trustees Nandram Kissoon and Ramnauth Ramsarran. The defendants were listed as the Guyana Sevashram Sangha, Swami Bahajananada, Swami Shiveshwarananda, Ramnarace Sukhna, Indrawattie Manohar, Mahadeo Ramjag and Saisnarine Kowlessar.
The order, which was issued on June 23, restrained the defendants either by themselves or their servants from removing Swami Shivashankarananda from the East Coast Demerara location until the hearing and determination of the matter.
When contacted, the Hindu Organisation’s attorney, Anil Nandlall, told Stabroek News that he is aware of the interim injunction but posited that this in no way hinders him from filing a court action which sought to do that very thing that the injunction blocked.
He said that the interim order granted by Justice George was made ex-parte and therefore the organisation did not have an opportunity to go before the judge before it was granted or make an argument in the matter.
“An ex parte allocation is inherently a violation of natural justice. It is sparingly granted and only in the extreme of circumstances,” he said.
Nandlall dismissed the suggestion that a matter could not be filed in wake of the interim order made in favour of the Swami.
“We want an order to put him out. He has named these people but assuming he wins these people have no claim against him because they have not filed a claim but we have filed,” he said. He was referring to the organisation and the trustees who are listed as the plaintiff in the latest court matter.
Nandlall said that at some point the judge will have to listen to arguments on whether the injunction should continue. He said that his contention is that it should not. The former Attorney General said that assuming that the judge orders that the injunction should not continue, the Swami remains in possession. He said that the proceedings that he has filed are intended to remove him from possession.
“We are planning to get that order discharged and then our action for possession will put him out,” he said before adding that with regards to the Swami’s matter, he has already filed an affidavit in answer. The other side has to now file a response, which is yet to be done.
In their filings, the Guyana Sevashram Sangha along with Kowlessar, Balgobin and Persaud are asking the court to give them possession of the land and building at Cove and John and are also seeking an injunction restraining the Swami from remaining, re-entering or occupying the property.
On the land in question, which has been leased for 99 years, an Ashram, a school, a dormitory for students and living quarters for religious officials have been erected.
The defendant, the court documents stated, is a former swami who performed religious functions and administrative functions for the Guyana Sevashram Sangha before being banished from the Monastic Order of the Bharat Sevashram Sangha.
The affidavit stated that following the death of the Swami Vidyananda Maharaj (the last Swami in charge), the defendant assumed responsibilities as the Swami in charge and was assisted by an ad hoc body of persons, which functioned as an Executive Committee.
Tenure
However, during and before his tenure as the Swami in charge, the court documents said that numerous complaints were made against the defendant. As a result of this, they said, Swami Bahajananada and Swami Shiveshwarananda along with members of Executive Committee of the Ashram held a series of private discussions with the defendant concerning the aforesaid allegations of misbehaviour.
The court documents said that “in the best interest of ensuring unity in the management of the Ashram, a decision was taken to establish a new Executive Management Committee which included the defendant, to work closely together and, of course that the defendant would reform himself.”
It was stated that these efforts did not bear fruit and to complicate and aggravate matters, the defendant “orchestrated the registration of a Trust Deed; imposing a new management team upon the Ashram without any consultation.”
It was as a result of this that the Bharat Sevashram Sangha, India, on March 14, 2016 wrote to the defendant informing him of the complaints that had been received about him; that he has registered an alien Constitution; that he must deregister the said Constitution and he must work with the new Swami for the finalisation of a new Constitution. The letter further informed the defendant that failure to heed the instructions of the parent body, the Bharat Sevashram Sangha would result in disciplinary action being taken against him.
“This letter bore no fruits, as a result, the Bharat Sevashram Sangha, sent a second letter dated the 24th day of March, 2016 to the Defendant, informing him that from reports received, his behaviour had gotten worse and he was summoned to the head office before the 27th April, 2016,” the documents said. Again, the defendant was informed that his failure to comply would result in severe disciplinary action.
A third letter, dated the 27th day of May, 2016, was sent to him. It did not yield any positive response and another latter dated 7th June, 2016 was penned. That missive stated that the defendant had been given numerous opportunities to be heard but had failed to avail himself of the opportunities.
“Notwithstanding, despite being dismissed from the monastic order and being commanded to hand over all monies, records, keys and any other property belonging to the Fourth Named Plaintiff to Swami Shiveshwarananda, the Defendant has refused and has remained in the living quarters provided by the Plaintiff,” the action states.
The plaintiffs have since made numerous requests to the defendant to vacate the said property but they have been futile, it adds.
