IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA WRIT PETITION No.10909/2015 (GM-RES) BETWEEN :
1. SREEKANTHA BALIKA PROUDHASHALA M.G. ROAD, SHANKARMUTT LAYOUT, FORT MOHALLA MYSORE -570 004 AN AIDED SCHOOL RECOGNIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION REPRESENTED BY ITS HEAD MASTER SRI. H.B. SUBBARAO 2. SREEKANTHA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL M.G. ROAD, SHANKARMUTT LAYOUT, FORT MOHALLA MYSORE - 570 004 AN AIDED SCHOOL RECOGNIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION REPRESENTED BY ITS HEAD MISTRESS SMT. SHANTHAMMA 3. SHREEKANTH SAMSKRUTHA SANGHA A BODY REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, NO.561, RAMACHANDRA AGRAHARA M.G. ROAD, MYSORE-570 088 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SHRI. R.G. NARASIMHA IYENGAR 4. SRI. K.N. VARADRAJA IYENGAR MEMORIAL TRUST, REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN TRUST ACT, SHANKARMUTT LAYOUT, FORT MOHALLA MYSORE-570 004 REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE / SECRETARY SRI. M.S. SRIKANTAIAH ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI SARAT CHANDRA BIJAI, ADVOCATE) AND :
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT (MUZRAI) VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT ALUR VENKATARAO ROAD, CHAMARAJAPET BANGALORE-560 002 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT OF MUZURAI INSTITUTION MYSORE-570 001 4. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER SHREE CHAMUNDESHWARI TEMPLE, CHAMUNDI HILL MYSORE-570 001 5. THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSORE DISTRICT MYSORE-570 001 6. THE THASILDAR MYSORE TALUK NAZARBAD MYSORE-570 001 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI KIRAN KUMAR.T.L, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER / COMMUNICATION DATED 26.02.2014 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT No.2 i.e., ANNEXURE-A AND ALSO QUASH THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 19.01.2007 i.e., ANNEXURE-B AND FOR CONSEQUENTIAL WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO FIX THE RENT OF THE SCHEDULE PREMISES WITH EFFECT FROM JUNE 2005 [i.e., WHEN THE POSSESSION OF SCHEDULE PREMISES WAS HANDED OVER BACK TO THE SCHOOLS] AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER RULE 31[3] OF THE KARNATAKA HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION & CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT RULES, 2002 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioners are before this Court assailing the communication dated 26.02.2014 at Annexure ‘A’ to the petition. The petitioners in that light are also seeking that the order dated 19.01.2007 at Annexure ‘B’ be quashed and a consideration be made in terms as contemplated under Rule 31(3) of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institution and Charitable Endowments Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’, for brevity).
2. The petitioners are running a school in the premises belonging to the temple, which has been leased to the petitioners. In respect of the fixation of rent as made by the respondents, the petitioners claiming to be aggrieved had filed a petition as at Annexure ‘C’ seeking consideration in terms of the proviso to Rule 31(3) of the Rules and thereby, to fix a reasonable rent as according to the petitioners, the school is being run for a public purpose. The respondents through the communication dated 26.02.2014 have rejected the request of the petitioners. It is in that light, the petitioners are before this Court in this petition.
3. Though the petitioners have referred to the manner in which the petitioners were put in possession of the petition schedule premises and the documents relating to the same have been relied upon, keeping in view the fact that the issue at the present is only with regard to the fixation of an appropriate rent for the period of lease and the manner in which the said consideration is required to be made, the other details need not be adverted.
4. The respondents on being notified of this petition, have filed the objections statement through respondent No.4. In respect of the lease being granted in favour of the petitioners and the rent being fixed at Rs.31,100/- per month and also the advance agreed thereto, the order is referred. The order as made is sought to be justified and in that regard, it is further contended that since the rent as fixed had not been paid, the respondents have taken action to evict the petitioners as the original lease period had also come to an end. In that light, the respondents seek to sustain the communication dated 26.02.2014, whereby the request of the petitioners has been rejected.
5. In the light of the rival contentions, having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate, I have perused the petition papers. Insofar as the challenge made to the order dated 19.01.2007 at Annexure ‘B’ to the petition is concerned, I am of the opinion that the same need not be considered at this point as the quashing of the said order would not arise at this juncture. This is so because what requires consideration is the request as made by the petitioners through the petition filed by them as at Annexure ‘C’ to fix a reasonable rent and if the said petition is considered by the respondents in accordance with law, the respondents themselves will have to modify the said order if the request as made by the petitioners is accepted by them.
6. Therefore, what arises for consideration at this juncture is only with regard to the manner of consideration as made by the respondents and the validity or otherwise of the communication dated 26.02.2014, which has been issued to the petitioner. To consider this aspect of the matter, at the outset, a reference is required to be made to Rule 31(3) of the Rules, whereunder the benefit is being sought by the petitioners. No doubt, the respondents with reference to the said provision, have issued the communication dated 26.02.2014 and have also sought to justify the same through their objections statement. However, what is necessary to be noticed is the proviso to sub-rule (3) of Rule 31 of the Rules, which provides a discretion to the Authority to take into consideration the purpose of the lease and if the same is for a public purpose, the rent could be reduced and fixed accordingly in that circumstance. If that aspect of the matter is kept in view and the petition as filed by the petitioners herein before the respondents seeking concession is taken into consideration, it is seen that the petitioners have made a detailed averment therein with regard to the nature of the activity of the petitioners in running the school and they have also indicated the public purpose involved in such activity.
7. Though at this juncture, this Court cannot come to a conclusion with regard to the correctness or otherwise of the averments made therein, respondent No.2, in any event, will have to take note of the details of the averments made therein, verify the documents, which are referred to therein in support of the contentions and thereafter, arrive at a conclusion as to whether the nature of the activity being carried on by the petitioners is of such public purpose so as to consider the grant of the premises on a concessional rent, thereby fixing the rent in terms of the proviso contained to Rule 31(3) of the Rules. If this aspect of the matter is kept in view and the communication dated 26.02.2014 (Annexure ‘A’) is taken note, the same would indicate that the details in this regard has not been adverted to and the decision in that regard has not been taken. All that the communication refers to is the provision contained in sections 49 and 50 as also Rule 31(3), but without reference to the nature of the activities of the petitioner No.4 - Trust or a conclusion on that basis. Therefore, the communication dated 26.02.2014, on the face of it, cannot be sustained as a detailed consideration has not been made.
8. In order to enable a detailed consideration on the petition filed by the petitioners herein before respondent No.2, the communication dated 26.02.2014 is quashed. A direction is issued to respondent No.2 to take note of the petition filed by the petitioners as at Annexure ‘C’ and the supporting documents thereto, provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and thereafter, arrive at a conclusion in accordance with law. Such consideration shall be made by respondent No.2 as expeditiously as possible, but not later than two months from the date on which a copy of this order and also copy of the petition as well as the supporting documents are furnished by the petitioners to the respondent No.2. Such submission of the documents, in any event, shall be made by the petitioners within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since this Court by the interim order dated 27.08.2015, had granted the benefit to the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) per month to respondent No.4, the said order shall enure to the benefit of the petitioners till the decision is taken by respondent No.2 in the manner as indicated above.
The petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE sma