IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOs.6097-6101 & 6102/2017 C/W WRIT PETITION NO.49540/2016 (GM-R/C) WRIT PETITION NOs.6097-6101 & 6102/2017 BETWEEN:
1. M/S MOOLA VAHNIKULA (TIGALARA) SEVA SANGHA (REGD) HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT SRI YASHODHA NILAYA SANTHE BEEDHI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU-562106 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI P MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.
2. SRI K MANJUNATH S/O LATE SRI KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS GENERAL SECRETARY M/S MOOLA VAHNIKULA (TIGALARA) SEVA SANGHA (REGD) HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT SRI YASHODHA NILAYA SANTHE BEEDHI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU-562106.
3. SRI C VENKATESH S/O CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS VICE PRESIDENT M/S MOOLA VAHNIKULA (TIGALARA) SEVA SANGHA (REGD) HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT SRI YASHODHA NILAYA SANTHE BEEDHI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU-562106.
4. SRI C MUNIRAJU S/O LATE SRI CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS VICE PRESIDENT M/S MOOLA VAHNIKULA (TIGALAR) SEVA SANGHA (REGD) HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT SRI YASHODHA NILAYA SANTHE BEEDHI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU-562106.
5. SRI MANJUNATHA @ LAKSHMANA S/O LATE YERAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS JOINT SECRETARY MS MOOLA VAHNIKULA (TIGALARA) SEVA SANGHA (REGD) HAVING ITS REGD OFFICE AT SRI YASHODHA NILAYA SANTHE BEEDHI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU-562106.
6. SRI P NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS TREASURER M/S MOOLA VAHNIKULA (TIGALARA) SEVA SANGHA (REGD) HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT SRI YASHODHA NILAYA SANTHE BEEDHI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU-562106.
… PETITIONERS (BY MR. VIVEK SUBBA REDDY, SR. COUNSEL A/W MR. DILI RAJAN, ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA MUZARAI DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE COMMISSIONER THE RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ALURU VENKAT RAO ROAD CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU-560018.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU-562106.
4. THE TAHSILDAR & MUZARAI OFFICER ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL BENGALURU DISTRICT-562106.
5. SRI RAMESH S/O POOJARI ARJUNAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/A DHARMARAYASWAMY TEMPLE STREET ANEKAL TOWN BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU URBAN-562106.
6. SRI CHANDRAPPA S/O SRI RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/A THIGALARA PETE ANEKAL TOWN BENGALURU DISTRICT-562102.
… RESPONDENTS (BY MR. DINESH RAO, AAG A/W MR. V. SHIVAREDDY, HCGP FOR R1-R4 SMT. PRAMODA K, ADV., FOR R5 MR. G.B. NANDISH GOWDA, ADV., FOR MR. R.B. SADASHIVAPPA, ADV., FOR R6) - - -
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED PORTION TO THE EFFECT THAT APPOINTMENT OF R-6 FOR NEXT YEAR AND R-6 FOR FUTURE INDEFINITE YEARS IN THE IMPUGNED OFFICIAL NOTIFICATION DTD.11.5.2016 ISSUED BY THE R-4 VIDE ANNEX-A & ETC.
WRIT PETITION NO.49540/2016 BETWEEN:
1. SRI. A . RAMESH S/O POOJARI ARJUNAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT DHARMARAYASWAMY TEMPLE STREET ANEKAL TOWN BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT. (BY MR. B.S. SACHIN, ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE TAHASILDAR ANEKAL TALUK ANEKAL BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-560078.
3. SRI CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O RAJAPPA R/AT ANEKAL TOWN BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-560078.
… PETITIONER (BY MR. DINESH RAO, AAG A/W MR. V. SHIVAREDDY, HCGP FOR R1 & R2 MR. G.B. NANDISH GOWDA, ADV., FOR MR. R.B. SADASHIVAPPA, ADV., FOR R3) - - -
… RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE PORTION OF THE ORDER DATED 11.05.2016 PASSED BY R-2 ONLY SO FAR AS PERMITTING THE R-3 TO CONDUCT KARAGA FESTIVAL FOR NEXT YEAR IS CONCERNED AND ALSO IN PERMITTING THE SAID CHANDRAPPA TO CARRY KARAGA IN THE ALTERNATIVE YEAR, AT ANNEX-N TO W.P & ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER In these writ petitions under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have assailed the validity of the Office Memorandum dated 11.05.2016 passed by Tahsildar, Anekal. In order to appreciate petitioners grievance, few facts need mention, which are stated infra:
The petitioner No.1 in W.P.No.6097/2017 is a Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act. Petitioner Nos.2 to 6 are office bearers of petitioner No.1-Society. Sri.Dharmaraya Swamy and Drowpadamma Temple is situated in Town Anekal, which is about 450 years old. The hereditary Archak is performing daily poojas and maintaining the Temple. However, the hereditary trust was not developing the Temple. Therefore, a civil suit viz., O.S.No.395/1979 was filed which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 20.04.1983. The aforesaid decree was affirmed in first appeal vide judgment and decree dated 3.4.1984. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before this Court viz., RSA No.412/1984. During pendency of the appeal, the affairs of the temple in question were taken by Muzrai Department of Government of Karnataka and the appeal was dismissed by an order dated 14.02.1996.
2. It is averred in W.P.No.6097/2017 that one Chandrappa viz., respondent No.6 in the aforesaid writ petition claiming himself to be an Archak started interfering with the affairs of the Temple and an order was passed by the Tahsildar on 03.4.2012 permitting him to perform Karaga ceremony for the year 2012. The aforesaid order was assailed by hereditary Archaks in a writ petition viz., W.P.No.13222-225/2012, which was dismissed. However, the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge was set aside by the Division Bench in W.A.No.5719-22/2012, which was disposed of on 08.4.2013 with a direction to the Tahsildar to permit hereditary Archak to carry Karaga if the representation is filed for the ensuing year. Accordingly a representation was filed on behalf of the petitioners, however, no decision was taken on the representation of the petitioners. The Karaga festival could not be conducted for the year 2013 and 2014. The respondent No.6 being aggrieved by the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court filed Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, which was disposed of by the Supreme Court with a direction to the Tahsildar to take a final decision after giving both the parties an opportunity. The Tahsildar by an order dated 11.05.2016, directed both the parties to conduct Karaga Mahotsav on rotational basis. Accordingly, it was directed that for the year 2016, Karaga Mahotsav may be celebrated by Ramesh who is the son of Arjun viz., the hereditary Archak of the temple and thereafter the next year the Karaga Mahotsav was directed to be celebrated by respondent No.6. In the aforesaid factual background, these petitions are filed.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by the Tahsildar is contrary to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court which has been upheld by the Supreme court. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate supported the order passed by the Tahsildar and has submitted that the aforesaid order has been passed with a view to maintain harmony in the society and the order passed by the Tahsildar is neither illegal nor is arbitrary. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 submitted that the Temple in question has been taken by Muzrai department and the hereditary rights of the Archaks in respect of Temple in question are yet to be determined. Therefore, the petitioners cannot seek absolute right to celebrate Karaga Mahotsav and the order passed by the Tahsildar does not call for any interference.
4. I have considered the submissions made on both sides. From perusal of the order dated 14.02.1996 passed in RSA No.412/1984, it is evident that father of Ramesh, who was arrayed as a defendant in the suit was working as an Archak. The aforesaid finding was recorded on the basis of admissions made by Plaintiff Witnesses Nos.1 to 4. The relevant extract of the order passed by Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.5719- 22/2012 reads as under:
“But the hereditary right of archak cannot be removed on the ground that 6th respondent –Sangha is objecting for the same and it is also not for the Secretary of the Sangha to say that if Chandrappa is permitted there will not be any objection by such entry. It is not based on the opinion of the entire community people of Vahnikula Kshatriyas. The Tahsildar cannot pass an order as to who has to carry Karaga. If such right is vested with the hereditary archakship, we should have considered the request of the appellants to permit them to carry the karaga in the ensuing festival. But we are unable to consider the case of the 2nd appellant-Ramesh since he is working in KEB and he is required to obtain prior permission at least 15 days prior to the date of commencement of Karaga. Since such a permission is not obtained so far.
In the circumstances, these appeals are disposed of. the order of the Tahsildar, Anekal dated 3.4.2012 passed in case No.DVS.CR.66/2010-11 is set aside and modified holding that the said order shall not be precedent for the ensuing year and if the appellants 1 and 2 are the hereditary archaks and if an application is filed for the next karaga festival by producing all necessary documents 2nd appellant to carry the karaga festival, shall be considered in accordance with law.”
5. The aforesaid order was upheld by the Supreme Court. However, it was directed that Tahsildar shall take a final decision after giving both parties an appropriate hearing.
6. The Tahsildar, however, has passed an order which reads as follows:
“Therefore, as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed this authority to take one clear decision, in this regard, it was decided that without any blemish give opportunity to both the parties to conduct Karaga mahotsav on rotation basis.”
7. The aforesaid order passed by the Tahsildar is contrary to the order passed by the Division Bench. It is also pertinent to mention here that Hon’ble Supreme court no where directed the Tahsildar to give both the parties opportunities to conduct Karaga mahotsav on rotation basis. The division Bench of this Court has clearly held that hereditary right of the Archak cannot be taken away. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from the vice of non application of mind and is cryptic and is arbitrary. The impugned order does not contain any reasons for permitting both the parties to perform Karaga festival on rotation basis. The impugned order is therefore, quashed and the Tahsildar is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties within a period of three months in the light of the observations made by Division Bench of this Court. Since, the preparation for karaga festival has to commence from 9.04.2019, by way of adhoc arrangement, it is directed that hereditary Archak shall perform Karaga mahotsav for the year 2019.
Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS