IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.42432 OF 2017 C/W WRIT PETITION NO.41361 OF 2017 (GM/R/C) WRIT PETITION NO.42432 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
SRI. G. K. RAJESH S/O. G. C. KUMAR, AGED 32 YEARS, R/AT JAVALIPETE, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 117. … PETITIONER (By Mr. K N NITHISH ADV., FOR Mr. K V NARASIMHAN, ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, 2ND FLOOR, SRI MALAI MAHADESHWARA NEWS BHAVAN, ALUR VENKATA RAO ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE-560 018.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR-572 101.
4. TAHSILDAR GUBBI TALUK, GUBBI, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 117.
5. SRI. CHANNABASAVESHWARA TEMPLE BY ITS PRESIDENT, GUBBI TOWN, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 117.
6. SRI. K. C. MALLIKARJUNAIAH S/O. LATE CHIKKARUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, PARICHARAKA AND IN-CHARGE PRADAHANA ARCHAK, SRI. CHANNABASAVESHWARA SWAMY TEMPLE,GUBBI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 216. … RESPONDENTS (By Mr. V SHIVAREDDY HCGP FOR R1-R4 SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE ADV. FOR R6 (ABSENT) R5 SERVED AND UNPRESENTED) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 And 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned order dtd.11.8.2017 passed by the R-2 at Annex-J and etc.
WRIT PETITION NO.41361 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
SRI K C MALLIKARJUNAIAH S/O LATE SRI CHIKKARUDRAPPA SUBAMAHMANYA SULLIA TALUK PRADHANA ARCHAKA SRI CHANNA BASAVESWARASWAMY TEMPLE GUBBI-572216 GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT. … PETITIONER (By Mr. K N PHANINDRA SR. ADV. A/W HARISHCHANDRA ADV.,) AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER FOR RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS IN STATE OF KARNATAKA MALAI MAHADESHWARA VARTHA BHAVAN TIPPU SULTAN PALACE ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE-560018.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR DISTRICT TUMKUR-570001. … RESPONDENTS (By Mr. V SHIVAREDDY HCGP) - - -
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 And 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dtd:11.8.2017 vide Annex-A passed by R-1 in appeal No.22/1998-99 and the order Dtd.5.1.1999 vide Annex-B passed by the R-2 and all further proceedings thereto and etc., These Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.K.N.Phanindra and Sri.K.N.Nitish, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Sri.V.Shivareddy, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State respondents.
2. In these petitions, the petitioners inter alia has assailed the validity of the order dated 11.08.2017 passed by the Commissioner.
3. Facts giving rise to the filing of the petitions briefly stated are that the petitioner in W.P.No.41361/2017 was appointed as Pradhan Archak on 01.01.1999. However, his appointment was cancelled unilaterally by the Deputy Commissioner by an order dated 05.01.1999 in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice. Being aggrieved, the petitioner in W.P.No.41361/2017 filed an appeal before the Commissioner under the Mysore Religious and Charitable Institutions Act, 1927. In the aforesaid appeal, the Appellate Authority granted an ad interim order on 07.01.1999 by which the order dated 05.01.1999 by which appointment of petitioner in W.P.No.41361/2017 as Pradhan Archak was cancelled, was stayed.
4. Thereafter, the Tahsildar issued a public notice on 22.06.2017 by which applications were invited for the post of Pradhan Archak. The aforesaid notice was the subject matter of challenge in W.P.No.32294/2017 in which an interim order was passed directing the respondents not to fill up the post and to decide the petition which was filed by the petitioner. The aforesaid appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner by an order dated 11.08.2017. In the aforesaid factual background, W.P.No.41361/2017 is filed whereas the petitioner in W.P.No.42432/2017 has challenged the aforesaid order on the ground that even though the Commissioner has held that the petitioner in W.P.No.41361/2017 is not eligible to continue as Pradhan Archak, yet he has been ready to continue in the post in question. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.41361/2017 submitted that the Commissioner ought to have appreciated that the order dated 05.01.1999 was passed by the Deputy Commissioner in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice as neither any notice nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner in W.P.No.41361/2017 before passing the aforesaid order. It is further submitted that the finding recorded by the Commissioner that the petitioner has been appointed by way of ad hoc arrangement in view of observations made in the order dated 05.01.1999 is perverse and vice of non-application of mind. It is further submitted that the Commissioner has grossly erred in holding that the petitioner in W.P.No.41361/2017 was required to challenge the order dated 07.01.1999. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the order passed by the Commissioner but are aggrieved by the operative portion of the order inasmuch the petitioner in W.P.No.41361/2017 has been directed to continue in office.
5. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides. Admittedly, under the Pradhan Archak can continue under the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Rules, 2002, a Pradhan Archak is entitled to hold the post till completion of the age of 65 years. The petitioner in W.P.No.41361/2017 shall complete the age of 65 years in the month of November 2019. The Commissioner has failed to appreciate that the impugned order dated 05.01.1999 was passed in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as neither any notice nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner in W.P.No.41361/2017 before passing the impugned order. The Appellate Authority ought to have appreciated that in view of the observations made in the impugned order dated 07.01.1999, it could not be held that the aforesaid petitioner has been appointed by way of temporary arrangement and it was not necessary for the aforesaid petitioner to challenge the order dated 07.01.1999 which was passed in the appeal preferred by the petitioner himself. The impugned order suffers from the vice of non-application of mind. Therefore, it cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is accordingly quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the necessary parties. Needless to state that the petitioner in W.P.No.42432/2017 shall be at liberty to file an application seeking modification in the appeal preferred by the petitioner in W.P.No.41361/2017 before the Appellate Authority which shall be considered in accordance with law by the Appellate Authority.
Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE RV