IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOs.31550-551/2016 & WRIT PETITION NO.31552/2016 (GM-R/C) BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. H.H. KARI GOWDA S/O HAVALE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT. OLD HAGARE VILLAGE HAGARE POST, MADIHALLI HOBLI BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573216.
2. SHRI. H.R. SANNE GOWDA S/O RANGE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT. OLD HAGARE VILLAGE HAGARE POST, MADIHALLI HOBLI BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573216.
3. SHRI. DODDE GOWDA S/O VEERABHADRA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT. OLD HAGARE VILLAGE HAGARE POST, MADIHALLI HOBLI BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573216.
… PETITIONERS (By Mr. SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT N, ADV.) AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN – 573201.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SAKLESHPURA SUB-DIVISION SAKLESHPURA HASSAN DISTRICT - 573134 3. THE TAHASILDAR BELUR TALUK BELUR - 572340 HASSAN DISTRICT.
4. SHRI. SHIVAIAH S/O DEVAIAH MAJOR R/AT. MADIHALLI VILLAGE MADIHALLI POST MADIHALLI HOBLI BELUR TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT – 573216.
… RESPONDENTS (By Ms. H.C. KAVITA, LEARNED HCGP FOR R1 TO R3 Mr. SUMANTH L. BHARADWAJ, ADV., FOR R4) - - -
These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for relevant records and quash the order of the Tahasildar, Belur Taluk, Belur, in case No.DVS(02)/2016-17, dated 10-5-2016, marked as Annx-B, in this W.P. in so far as it relates to appointing archaks sree onti kathaiah devaru and sree marimaramma devaru, by issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or directions, as the case may be and further be pleased to grant the petitioners such other further reliefs, as the case may be and deems fit under the facts and circumstances of this case and allow this W.P. with costs and etc.
These Writ Petitions coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.Shankaranarayana Bhat N., learned counsel for the petitioners.
Smt.H.C.Kavita, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Sri.Sumanth L.Bharadwaj, learned counsel for respondent No.4.
2. The petitions are admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same are heard finally.
3. In these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed the validity of the order dated 10.05.2016 passed by the Tahsildar, by which petitioners and respondent No.4 along with several other persons have been appointed as Archaks in respect of Sree Onti Kathaiah Devaru and Sree Marimaramma Devaru temple.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the main deity in the temple in question is notified under the provisions of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). However, the impugned order has been passed by the Tahsildar in respect of the subsidiary deity which is also covered under the provisions of the Act. It is submitted that the competent authority is the Deputy Commissioner to pass any order under the Act in regard to the temple in question.
5. However, the learned Additional Government Advocate and the learned counsel for respondent No.4 have submitted that the main deity is notified under the provisions of the Act and the subsidiary deity is not notified under the provisions of the Act.
6. Be that as it may, since admittedly the impugned order has not been passed by the competent authority under the provisions of the Act, learned counsel for the respondents is unable to administer before this Court as to under which provisions the Tahsildar could have passed such an order. The impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law as the same has been passed without any authority. Accordingly, the same is quashed and set aside. Needless to state, the parties are at liberty to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to them under the law.
Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of.
7. In view of the disposal of the writ petitions, the pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and is accordingly, disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE RV