IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.10462 OF 2018(GM-R/C) Between:
Sri.Anil Bhat, Aged 55 years, S/o late Narayana V Bhat, Adalthedar, Sri.Veeramaruthi Temple, Kotekeri Road, Mulky, Mangalore Taluk, D.K-574 154.
… Petitioner (By Sri.Pundikai Ishwara Bhat, Advocate) And:
1. The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary Dept.of Revenue and Religious and Charitable Endowments, M S Building, Bengaluru-560 001.
2. The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious Institutions & Charitable Endowment, D C Compound, Mangalore, D.K-575 001.
…Respondents (By Sri.Sridhar N Hegde, HCGP) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash order dated 19.06.2017 passed by the R-2 in proceedings No.LND CR 11/2016-17 vide Annexure- A, notification dated 04.09.2017 vide Annexure-A1 and notice dated 29.01.2018 vide Annexure-A2; to quash the Gazette Notification No.RD 87 MUAABI 2012 date4d 29.09.2012 at Annexure-G insofar as it relates to the inclusion of the petitioner’s temple i..e, Halekote Hanumantha Devasthana at Sl.No.100 in the notification.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.Pundikai Ishwara Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.Sridhar N. Hegde, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia has assailed the validity of the notification issued by the State Government under Section 23(a) of the Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for short), by which the Temple in question has been declared as public temple.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned notification has been issued without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that since the notification has been issued, therefore, no opportunity of hearing has to be afforded.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The relevant extract of Section 23(a) of the Act reads as under:
‘(a) all Charitable Institutions and Hindu Religious Institutions which on the date of commencement of this Act are in the sole charge of the State Government [under the provisions of Mysore Religious and Charitable Institutions Act, 1927] or for the benefit of which.
(i) any monthly or annual grant in perpetuity is made from public revenues: or (ii) tasdik allowance under section 19 of Mysore Religious and Charitable Inams Abolition Act, 1955 is paid.’ 7. It is well settled in law that unless and until the provision of principles of natural justice are expressly excluded, the same have to be read into the provisions of a statute. Section 23(a) of the Act does not expressly exclude the provision of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the same are required to be read into Section 23(a) of the Act. Admittedly, the impugned notification has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned notification dated 29.09.2012 is hereby quashed and set aside insofar as it pertains to the petitioner- Temple.
8. Needless to state that the respondents shall be at liberty to take an action, if so advised, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
With the aforesaid liberty, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE dn/-