IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.47114 OF 2017 (GM-R/C) BETWEEN:
MAHISHAMARDINI TEMPLE CHARA CHARA VILLAGE, KARKALA THALUK UDUPI DISTRICT REP. BY MR. RATNAKAR SHETTY MANAGING TRUSTEE RESIDENT OF CHARA DODDAMANA CHARA, KARKALLA TALUK-576 112 DISTRICT: DAKSHINA KANNADA.
(BY MR. RAMESH CHANDRA, ADV.) AND:
1. THE ZILLA DHARMIKA PARISHATH REP. ITS EX-OFFICIO SECRETARY D.K. MANGALORE-575001.
2. THE DY. COMMISSIONER, UDUPI DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT PIN CODE-576 102.
(BY MR. VIJAY KUMAR A. PATIL, AGA FOR R2 MS. SADHANA DESAI, ADV., FOR R1) - - -
… PETITIONER … RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO PASS ORDER FOR WITHDRWAL/QUASHING OF NOTIFICATION/ORDER DTD:22.9.2017 ANNEXURE-A. GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO GRANT QUASH THE ORDER DTD:22.9.2017 OPERATED BY THE R-1 PENDING DISPOSAL OF THIS W.P. & ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.Ramesh Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Vijay Kumar A. Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent.No.1.
Mis.Sadhana Desai, leaned counsel for the Respondent.No.1.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Article 226 & 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia seeks a writ of certiorari for quashment of the notification dated 22.09.2017, by which invitation has been published for constitution of managing committee in respect of Mahesha Mardini Temple.
4. Facts leading to filing of this petition briefly stated are that the petitioner claims to be hereditary trustee of the Temple in question. However, the respondents have issued the impugned notification by which process for constitution of the managing committee in respect of the temple has been initiated. According to the petitioner, the same has been issued in violation of Section 25 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have no authority to issue the impugned notification as the petitioner is the hereditary trustee of the temple in question. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that in compliance of the order dated 13.11.2018, an affidavit has been filed by under Secretary to Government, Revenue Department in which in para 4 it is stated that the temple in question was managed by the state Government under Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1951. However, by over sight, the aforesaid temple was not notified in the list which was published on 30.04.2003. subsequently, the STATE government has notified the temple vide notification dated 10.05.2012. It is also pointed out that the petitioner has not challenged the aforesaid notification. It is further submitted that disputed question of fact arise for consideration in this writ petition and the petitioner has the remedy of approaching the forum provided under Section 25 of the Act.
6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. In view of the pleadings of the parties and the submissions made by them, it is evident that disputed questions of fact arise for consideration in this petition viz., whether the temple in question has been notified as belonging to Mujrai or whether the petitioner is the hereditary trustee of the temple in question. The aforesaid question of fact cannot be adjudicated in this proceeding under Article 226 of Constitution of India, as evidence is required to be adduced for determination of the same. Under Section 25 of the Act, the petitioner has the remedy to approach the Rajyadharmika Parishat for adjudication of the aforesaid dispute. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a liberty to the petitioner to approach Rajyadharmika Parishat within a period of two weeks from today by filing an application. The Rajyadharmika Parishat after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties shall adjudicate the dispute by a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such an application. Till the matter is adjudicated by Rajyadharmika Parishat, ad-interim order granted by this Court on 26.10.2017 shall continue. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS