IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOS.8473-8479 OF 2019 (GM – R/C) Between:
1. Rishi Kariyappa, Aged about 41 years, S/o Mr.Nachiappa, M/s. Anjanadri Constructions, R/at No.152/1, Anjanadri, RMV 2nd Stage, 3rd Main Road, 9th Cross, Bangalore – 560 094.
2. C.V.Yogesh, Aged about 34 years, S/o Mr.V.Vijayan, R/at No.38/10, 26th Main, Nandini Layout, 5th Block, Bangalore – 560 096.
3. Dr.Dinesh G Shetty, Aged about 40 years, R/at No.134(1029), “Nagalaxmi Towers”, 20th Main, Rajajinagar 5th Block, Bangalore – 560 010.
4. A.Harsha, Aged about 32 years, S/o Mr.Ashwathnarayana, No.45, 4th Cross, Ganesha Block, Mahalaxmi Layout, Bangalore – 560 096.
5. D. Jayakumar, Aged about 44 years, S/o late Doulathram Kundan Das, R/at No.247, 7th C Main Road, 3rd Street, 4th Block, Basaveshwaranagara, Bangalore – 560 079.
6. Dr.A.T.S.Raghuram, Aged about 30 years, S/o Mr.Tyagaraja, R/at No.195, Subbaramachetty Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore – 560 004.
7. Smt. Chandrakala, Aged about 43 years, D/o Mr.Srinivasa, R/at No.147, 4th Main Road, 5th Cross, Nagarabhavi 2nd Phase, 10th Stage, Gangadharappa Layout, Bangalore – 560 072.
... Petitioners (By Sri.Satyanand B.S., Advocate) And:
1. Government of Karnataka, By Revenue Department (Mujarai), M.S.Building, Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore – 560 001.
By its under Secretary.
2. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments in Karnataka, Government of Karnataka, Mahadeshwar Bhavan, Chamarajpet, Bangalore – 560 018.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District, K.G.Road, Bangalore – 560 009.
4. The Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District and Administrator of Sri Prasanna Veeranjaneya Temple, Bangalore.
Having its Office at: K.G. Road, Bangalore – 560 009.
5. The Executive Officer, Sri Prasanna Veeranjaneya Temple, Mahalaxmipuram, Bangalore – 560 086.
6. Mr.T.Seshagiri Rao, Aged about 60 years, R/at No.230, 2nd Main Road, 2nd Cross, Mahalaxmi Layout, Bangalore – 560 086.
7. Mr.H.Ramakrishna, Aged about 65 years, R/at No.89, 3rd Main, 1st Phase, WOC Road, Manjunatha Nagara, Bangalore – 560 010.
8. Smt. T.D.Kathyayini, Aged about 60 years, R/at No.250, HIMAMSHU, 3rd Main, Mahalaxmi Layout, Bangalore – 560 086.
9. Smt.H.S.Padma, Aged about 60 years, R/at No.280/15, 5th Main, Mahalaxmi Layout, Bangalore – 560 086.
10. Dr.G.Ashwathnarayana, Retd. Chief Executive Engineer, Aged about 80 years, R/at No.290/33, Maruthi Krupa, 11th Cross, Mahalaxmi Layout, Bangalore – 560 086.
11. Mr.Pavan Kumar, Aged about 45 years, S/o late S.V.Krishnamurthy Rao, R/at No.805, 4th Main, 8th Cross, HMT Layout, Nagendra Post, Bangalore – 560 073.
12. Mr.S.Lakshmeesha, Aged about 56 years, S/o late S.Subbarao, R/at No.165, Subbarama Chetty Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore – 560 004.
13. Mr.Prakash, Aged about 47 years, S/o late Rama Rao, Main Priest, Sri Prasanna Veeranjaneya Swami Temple, Mahalaxmipuram, Bangalore – 560 086.
... Respondents (By Sri.V.Shivareddy, HCGP for R1 to R4; Sri.M.S.Varadarajan, Advocate for R6, 8, 9, 10 & 13;
Sri.N.Ravindranath Kamath, Advocate for R11; Sri.B.Vinayaka, Advocate for R5;
Notice to R7 is held sufficient vide order dated 12.03.2019;
R12 served through hand summons) These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the Government order issued by the R-1 dated 07.12.2018 vide Annexure – K, and consequently, also quash all the further proceedings and orders that are conducted and passed respectively by the R-1 to 5 and etc., These Petitions coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.Satyanand B.S, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Sri. Sri.V.Shivareddy, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
Sri.M.S.Varadarajan, learned counsel for respondent Nos.6, 8, 9, 10 & 13.
Sri.N.Ravindranath Kamath, learned counsel for respondent No.11.
Sri.B.Vinayaka, learned counsel for respondent No.5.
The petitions are admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same are heard finally.
2. In these petitions, the petitioners inter alia seeks quashment of order dated 07.12.2018 passed by the State Government by which Managing Committee has been constituted in respect of the Temple in question.
3. The facts giving rise to filing of the writ petitions briefly stated are that Sri Prasanna Veeranjaneya Swamy Temple had filed a petition, namely, W.P.No.840/2014, in which challenge was made to the order dated 11.09.2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru by which the Temple was declared as a ‘Muzarai Institution’ under Section 42 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for short).
4. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of with the following directions:
“8. Therefore, in any case, the petitioner-Temple has to form a New Committee and approach the State Government to record its satisfaction, as to whether the New Committee can be handed over the management and affairs of the said Temple or not.
9. In view of the aforesaid, as agreed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Govt. Advocate, the writ petition is disposed of with a liberty and direction to the petitioner to form its New Committee and approach the 1st Respondent-State Government and the State Government shall act in accordance with the provisions of Section 43(8) of the Act and pass appropriate orders in the matter, as expeditiously as possible.”
5. In compliance of the directions issued by this Court in the said writ petition, the State Government by order dated 07.12.2018 has constituted the Management Committee for a period of three years. The petitioners have assailed the validity of the aforesaid order in these writ petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been authorized by the erstwhile Committee to submit a representation before the State Government. It is also submitted that in view of order dated 14.03.2018, passed by a Bench of this Court, in W.P.No.840/2014, the petitioners are entitled to be nominated as members of the Managing Committee. In support of the submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to Section 43 (8) of the Act.
7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the records. The petitioners have no statutory right under the Act to be nominated in the Managing Committee of the Temple in question. The resolution passed by the erstwhile Managing Committee does not confer any right nor any corresponding obligation on the State Government to nominate the petitioners in the Managing Committee. Similarly, from perusal of the order passed by a Bench of this Court dated 14.03.2018, the relevant extract of which has been extracted above, it is evident that even the aforesaid order does not confer any right on the petitioners to be nominated in the Managing Committee of the Temple in question. Section 43 (8) of the Act provides that every Notification issued under sub- section (5) or (7) shall remain in force for such period as may be specified therein and which may be extended further, so, however that the total period shall not exceed five years from the date of first notification, or till a new Committee of Management is formed to the satisfaction of the State Government. Managing Committee to run the temple has been constituted based on the satisfaction, which have been arrived by the State Government. The petitioners do not have any statutory right to seek inclusion of their names in the Managing Committee. In the absence of any such right to be included in the Managing Committee, the writ petitions are held to be not maintainable.
However, the Writ Petitions are disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to them under the law.
Sd/- JUDGE dn/-