IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION NOS. 36130 OF 2014 & 38927-38932 OF 2014(GM-R/C) BETWEEN :
1. SREE BHAGAWAN MARUTHI TEMPLE TRUST (REGD) HAVING OFFICE AT SREE BHAGAWAN MARUTHI TEMPLE, NO.49, PALACE ROAD BANGALORE-560 002 REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT SRI. GIRIYAPPA 2. SRI. GIRIYAPPA S/O LATE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/A NO.66, KAVERIPURA MAIN ROAD KAMAKSHIPALYA BANGALORE-560 079 PRESIDENT 3. SRI. B. PRAKASH S/O BYANNA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/A NO.27, POTTERY TOWN BANGALORE-560 046 TRUSTEE 4. SRI. G. RAVISHANKAR S/O NANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/A NO.774, BEL COLONY NAGALAND CIRCLE BANGALORE-560 013 TRUSTEE 5. SRI. T. MARUTHI S/O THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/A NO.9, 11TH MAIN ‘C’ STREET, VASANTHNAGAR BANGALORE-560 052 TRUSTEE 6. SRI. K.S. ANANDA S/O SUBBANNA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/A NO.46, 6TH CROSS A.T.ROAD, VASANTHNAGAR BANGALORE-560 052 TRUSTEE 7. SMT. ANUSUYA W/O VASUDEV AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/A NO.387, 5TH CROSS R.K.MUTT LAYOUT K.G.NAGAR BANGALORE-560 019 TRUSTEE …PETITIONERS (BY SHRI. B. VINAYAKA FOR SHRI. ABHIJIT HARANAHALLI, ADVOCATES) AND :
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF MUZARAI REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY M.S.BUILDING VIDHANA VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS 2ND FLOOR, SRI.MALAIMAHADESHWARA VARTHA BHAVAN ALUR VENKATARAO ROAD CHAMARAJPET BANGALORE-560 018 3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT AND THE ADMINISTRATOR K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 009 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MUZARAI WORKS, MUNICIPAL DIVISION 3RD FLOOR, PODIUM BLOCK VISHVESHWARAIAH TOWER BANGALORE-560 001 5. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER SREE BHAGAWAN MARUTHI TEMPLE NO.49, PALACE ROAD BANGALORE-560 002 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SHWETA KRISHNAPPA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SHRI. P.N. HEGDE AND SHRI. A.G. GURURAJ, ADVOCATES FOR R5; SHRI. V.R. PRASANNA, ADVOCATE FOR APPLICANTS ON IA-3/14 ) . . . .
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.13.5.2014 PASSED BY THE R-1 DTD.13.5.2014 (ANNEX-A) THE REPORT DTD.21.1.2014 BY THE R-4 (ANNEX-B) RECOMMENDATION DTD.10.2.2014 BY THE R-2 (ANNEX-C) OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DTD.30.5.2014 (ANNEX-D) BY THE R-2 AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard Shri.B.Vinayaka, learned Advocate for petitioners, Smt.Shweta Krishnappa, learned AGA for State and Shri.A.G.Gururaj, learned Advocate for respondent No.5.
2. Petitioner is aggrieved by Government order dated 13th May 2014 issued under Sections 42 and 43 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 (for short ‘the Act’) by which the State Government have declared first petitioner – Temple as ‘Declared Institution’.
3. Shri.Vinayaka, submitted that before declaring the Temple as ‘Declared Institution’ under Section 42 of the Act, the Commissioner is required to issue a notice under Section 43(1) of the Act and such notice shall state the reasons for proposed action by granting reasonable time which shall not be less than one month from the date of issue of notice as provided under Section 43(2) of the Act to furnish reply. He submitted that without issuing notice, based on a letter dated 18th December 2012 written by the Minister for Muzarai, the Commissioner has written to the Deputy Commissioner and obtained a Report through the Assistant Commissioner. Therefore, the entire proceedings is vitiated for want of compliance of Sections 42 and 43 of the Act.
4. Learned AGA sought to support the order by submitting that a notice was issued by the Assistant Commissioner on 28th January 2013 (Annexure-N).
5. I have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records.
6. Declaration of a Religious Institution is prescribed in Section 42 of the Act and it reads as follows:
“42. Declared Institutions.- The State Government may, where it is satisfied on a report of the Commissioner under section 43 or otherwise that any Hindu Religious Institution, whether or not governed by a settled scheme, is being mismanaged, declare such institution to be subject to the regulation of this chapter.
Provided no such declaration shall be made without following the procedure hereinafter specified.
7. The proviso to Section makes it clear that no declaration shall be made without following the procedure prescribed.
8. Sub-Section (1) of Section 43 of the Act requires that the Commissioner shall issue a notice in prescribed manner and call upon the Manager or other persons having interest to show cause as to why such Institution shall not be declared under the Act. The specific grievance of the petitioners is that no such notice was issued nor petitioners were heard in the matter.
9. Learned AGA in her usual fairness, does not dispute that the notice contemplated under the Section 43(1) of the Act was not issued.
10. Thus, there is violation of law inasmuch as the rights of individuals have been touched upon by the State Government without complying mandatory provisions.
11. In view of the fact that notice under Section 43(1) of the Act has not been issued, the declaration purported to have been made by exercising power under Sections 42 and 43 of the Act, by order dated 13th May 2014, is unsustainable.
12. Resultantly, this petition merits consideration and it is accordingly allowed.
The order dated 13th May 2014 is set-aside. The State shall forthwith handover the Temple to the petitioners’ administration.
No costs.
SPS Sd/- JUDGE