IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO. 8299 OF 2016 (GM-R/C) BETWEEN:
SREE MAHALINGESHWARA TEMPLE KUKKEHALLI-576124 UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT AND MANAGING COMMITTEE, SRI K.JAYARAMA HEGDE, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O D.K.BHUJANGA HEGDE, R/O BYLABEEDU HAMLET OF KUKKEHALLI VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER (By Sri SHANTAKUMAR.K.C, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001 2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS IN KARNATAKA, MALAI MAHADESHWARA BUILDING, ALUR VENKATA RAO ROAD, CHAMARAJAPET, BENGALURU-560018 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI – 576 101.
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (INCHARGE), OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS, DISTRICT OFFICE COMPLEX BLOCK, 1ST FLOOR, RAJATHADRI, MANIPAL, UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 101.
5. THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT KUKKEHALLI, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT- 576 117.
... RESPONDENTS (By Sri.Y.D.HARSHA, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS RELATING TO CONCERNING AND CONNECTED WITH THE IMPUGNED OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DATED 09.02.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A ISSUED BY THE R-4 PERUSE THE SAME AND DECLARE THE SAID ORDER AS AUTHORITARIAN, VOID, UNENFORCEABLE, ARBITRARY AND DEVOID OF THE AUTHORITY OF LAW.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
* * * O R D E R Sri Shantakumar.K.C., learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Sri Y.D.Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the impugned official memorandum dated 09.02.2016 issued by Respondent No.4 as well as the writ of prohibition, commanding the respondents from in any manner, interfering with the administration, management, control and the religious affairs of the petitioner-temple in question.
4. When the matter is taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the term of the administrator of the temple has expired after a period of six months and therefore, he has no authority to continue in office.
5. On the other hand, Sri Y.D.Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the respondents be granted liberty to take a decision in accordance with law in this regard under Section 29 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).
6. In view of the aforesaid submission and taking into account the fact that the life of the order after six months and as the same has expired, the impugned order dated 09.02.2016 issued by Respondent No.4 as at Annexure – ‘A’ is hereby quashed. It is needless to state that the respondents shall be at liberty to take action as provided under Section 29 of the Act, in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid liberty, this writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE dh