IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.53005 OF 2018 AND WRIT PETITION NOs.57569-570 OF 2018 (GM-R/C) BETWEEN:
1. MR NITHYANANDA KATIPALLA S/O SOMAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS NEAR BAJANA MANDIR 1ST BLOCK MANDIR 1ST BLOCK KATIPALLA MANGALURU-575 030 2. MR HARISCHANDRA S/O DODDAYYA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS SITE NO 3/777 3RD BLOCK KATIPALLA MANGALURU-575 030 3. MR SATHISH DEVADIGA S/O MONAPPA DEVADIGA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 3RD BLOCK KATIPALLA MANGALURU-575 030 (BY MR. UDAYA PRAKASH MULIYA, ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY … PETITIONERS 2. THE COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS CHAMARAJPET BENGALURU-560 018 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS D.K.DISTRICT MANGALURU-575 001 4. SRI MAHAGANAPATHI TEMPLE KATIPALLA-575 030 REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER 5. MR DHARMENDRA GANESHPURA S/O M K GOVINDASWAMY MAJOR PROPRIETOR M/S JANAKI CONSTRUCTION AND AGENCIES JANAKI NIVAS DOOR NO 157 NEAR SYNDICATE BANK KATIPALLA-575 030 … RESPONDENTS (BY MR. V SHIVAREDDY, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3, MR. VINOD PRASAD, ADV. FOR R5 V/O DATED 25/6/19 NOTICE TO R4 HELD SUFFICENT) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT R-2 AND TO HOLD APPROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS TO DISQUALIFY R-5 FROM THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT OF GANESHPURA SRI MAHAGANAPATHI TEMPLE, KATIPALLA (R-4) IN FURTHERANCE OF THE REPRESENTATION AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.Udaya Prakash Muliya, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr.V.Shivareddy, learned High Court Government Pleader respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr.Vinod Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.5.
2. The writ petitions are admitted for hearing.
With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same are heard finally.
3. In these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners inter alia seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to hold appropriate proceedings to disqualify respondent No.5 from membership of the Committee of Management of Ganeshpura Sri.Mahaganapathi Temple, Katipalla.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent No.5 is not eligible to be a member of the Management of the Temple in question in view of the bar contained in Section 25(4)(iii) of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) as respondent No.5 has an interest in the contract. It is also submitted that the Deputy Commissioner is under a statutory obligation under Section 50 of the Act to hold an enquiry.
5. On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader has submitted that suitable action on the representation, which is pending consideration before the Deputy Commissioner shall be taken in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the respondent No.5 submitted that respondent No.5 was a contractor in the year 2013 and is no longer a contractor and therefore, is not yet disqualified from being a member of the Committee. It is further submitted that the petitioner should make a statement before the Court that the petitioner is still the contractor before the writ as sought for by the petitioner is granted.
6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel on both the sides and have perused the record. Section 50 of the Act casts a statutory duty on the Deputy Commissioner to conduct an enquiry on receipt of a complaint. Thus, the Commissioner is under a statutory obligation to hold an enquiry on receipt of the complaint. The petitioner who claims to have interest of the affairs of the trust has filed a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner is required to conduct an enquiry into the complaint in the manner provided under Section 50 of the Act. Therefore, in the fact situation of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petitions with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner to decide the complaint preferred by the petitioners after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as respondent No.5 by a speaking order within a period of two months from today. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS