IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA W.P.Nos.42246-42247/2011 (GM-R/C) BETWEEN:
1. SRI. JAVANE GOWDA @ MARILINGE GOWDA S/O LATE TAMMADI KARI GOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 2. SRI RAJANNA S/O LATE TAMMADI LINGE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT AMRUTHESHWARANA HALLI GOWDIGERE POST, KASABA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT -571430.
... PETITIONERS (BY SMT.VAISHNAVI NAIK, ADV. FOR SRI KASHYAP N NAIK, ADV.) AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER THE KARNATAKA HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 2ND FLOOR MALE MAHADESHWARA VARTHA BHAVANA ALUR VENKATARAO ROAD CHAMARAJAPET BANGALORE- 560 018.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA- 571 401.
3. THE TAHSILDAR MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT 571 430.
4. SRI A C MANJUNATH @ JADESWAMY S/O SRI CHIKKASWAMY MINOR- REP. BY HIS FATHER & NATURAL GUARDIAN SRI CHIKKASWAMY R/AT AMRUTHESHWARANA HALLI GOWDIGERE POST KASABA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 430.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.S. CHANDRASHEKAR, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3 SRI CHANDRASHEKAR GOWDA, ADV. FOR SRI G.S.BHAT, ADV. FOR R4 TO R10) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.10.2011 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALL OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL ACTIONS BY ISSUING APPROPRIATE WRIT/S AND/OR DIRECTIONS.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioners filed the present writ petitions to issue writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 13-10-2011 bearing No.ADM/1/CR 865/2011-12, passed by the first respondent at Annexure-A.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners are the “hereditary archakas” of “Maramma Temple” situated in Amrutheshwaranahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Malavalli Taluk, Mandya District, is a minor Muzarai Temple. The petitioners are the “hereditary archakas” of the said “Maramma Temple” and have been performing daily poojas in the Temple from a long time. The petitioners were also receiving the amount in this behalf from the Government of Karnataka at the rate of Rs.6,000/- p.a. The petitioners have been performing poojas in the said temple as an ardent and highly devoted archakas. At no point of time, there were any allegations of acrimony against the style of functioning of archakship of the petitioners. On certain false allegations made by certain people, the second respondent has written a representation to the first respondent stating that the petitioners are uneducated and they are involved in criminal proceedings and second petitioner has broken the idol of the Goddess “Sri Maramma” in the temple. In view of the said allegations, the second respondent has recommended for removal of the petitioners from the post of “Archakas” from the “Maramma Temple” and to post one Sri. A.C.Manjunath to the said post. A bare perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the first respondent has passed the said order solely based on the recommendations made by the second respondent, vide letter dated 23.8.2011, and has further directed that the new appointee Sri. A.C.Manjunath alias Jadeswamy should pass the “aagama” test, requisite for the performance of pooja in the said “Maramma Temple”.
3. It is further contended that before passing any impugned order, no show cause notice or any inquiry was ever conducted by any of the respondents against the petitioners before removing them from the post of “Archaka” and stated that the new appointee Sri. A.C. Manjunath is a minor having no knowledge on the performance of poojas or on the “aagama shastras”. Moreover, for the performance of pooja at the “Maramma Temple”, the requisite qualification is to pass in the “aagama shastras”. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the first respondent cannot be sustained. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court for the relief sought for.
4. It is the case of the respondents that the new appointees were impleading applicants before this Court as respondent Nos.4 to 10 and contended that the very petitioners filed O.S.No.261/2011 before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Malavalli, Mandya District, for a relief of declaration and for grant of permanent injunction. It is further submitted that all the impleading applicants were parties to the suit in O.S.No.261/2011, initially there was an order of injunction granted in the said suit which came to be vacated subsequently after these impleading applicants filed their statement of objections to the said suit. The petitioners without disclosing these facts have filed the above writ petitions and have obtained an order of status-quo. It is further stated that the fourth respondent-A.C.Manjunath has been appointed as “Archaka” of the Maramma Temple and has been qualified to be an “Archaka” as he has been awarded with qualifying certificate by the Karnataka State Shivarchaka Sangha (Regd.), Mysore.
5. It is further submitted that there were serious charges-allegations against the petitioners and the first petitioner was involved in a criminal case in C.C.No.189/2000 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. The second petitioner was misusing and mismanaging the funds of the Maramma Temple and has damaged the idol of Goddess “Sri Maramma”. The Village Accountant of Kemboothagere Circle, Malavalli Taluk, inspected the said Temple and submitted a report to the Tahsildar. The second petitioner himself has admitted that he was involved in damaging the idol of Goddess “Sri Maramma” in the Temple and agreed to replace the damaged idol of Goddess and will pay Rs.5000/- as a penalty to the Village Accountant. The Tahsildar, Malavalli Taluk, submitted a report to the Deputy Commissioner about the facts and involvement of the petitioners.
6. The Deputy Commissioner based on the undisputable facts and antecedents of the petitioners sent a report to the Commissioner, Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments, Bangalore, reporting the factual position of that the petitioners are involved in the afore mentioned cases viz., damaging the idols in the Temple and also their involvement in the criminal cases. The first respondent, taking into consideration of the above facts has appointed respondent No.4 as a “Temporary Archaka” to Maramma Temple, subject to certain conditions. Therefore, sought to dismiss the writ petitions.
7. The State Government filed statement of objections and contended that the Maramma Temple situated at Amrutheswaranahalli, Malavalli Taluk is a ‘C’ category temple under the provisions of Karnataka Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 2002. The Tasdik of Rs.28/- is fixed by the Muzarai Commissioner, Bengaluru and Hakkupatra was issued in No.448/86-87 during the life time of Sri. Linge Gowda (father of the second petitioner till 31-3-2009) and a copy of the Hakkupatra is herewith produced and marked at Annexure-R1. The first petitioner was never worked as an “Archaka” of the temple in question and he has not received any Tasdik from the Respondent-State. After the death of the father of the second petitioner neither the family of the petitioner nor any one was appointed for performing the duty of “Archaka” in the temple in question. Accordingly, the people of Amrutheshwaranahalli have made an application to the Tahsildar, Malavalli and requested him to appoint “Archaka” to the Maramma Temple. Having regard to the same, the first and second respondents have handed over the jewels of Goddesses “Sri Maramma” to the fourth respondent pursuant to his appointment on temporary basis. Therefore, the petitioners herein are not working as “Archaka” as on the date of the impugned order at Annexure-A.
8. It further contended that the petitioners are illiterate and also a criminal cases are pending for consideration before the competent Court against the first petitioner in Crime Nos.82/1998, 129/1993, 853/2012, 58/2012, 136/2012, 30/2011, 46/1998 and 3/2013. It is further contended that second petitioner has damaged the idol of the Goddesses “Sri Maramma” in the temple and at that time, the second petitioner was caught hold of by the villagers of Amrutheshwaranahalli. On considering the aforesaid illegal acts of the petitioners, the Respondent- Authorities have appointed the fourth respondent, who is eligible to be appointed as “Archaka” of temple in question. It is further contended that the fourth respondent herein is eligible to be appointed as “Archaka” of temple in question and he has obtained certificate from the training conducted to the “Archaka” by the Karnataka Rajya Shivarchak Sangha (R), Mysuru and on considering the same, the Respondents-Authority has appointed the fourth respondent as “Archaka” of the temple vide order dated 13-10-2011 passed by the first respondent. Since then, the fourth respondent is performing the duty as “Archaka” in the temple in question regularly without any blemish and in this regard, the petitioners herein have filed O.S.No.261/2011 and sought for a relief of declaration and consequently relief of permanent injunction and the petitioners, simultaneously have approached this Court seeking similar relief against the respondents by suppressing the fact that they have not approached the Civil Court for an identical relief in this regard. Therefore, sought for dismissal of the writ petitions.
9. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties to the lis.
10. Smt. Vaishnavi Naik, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order passed by the respondents-Authority removing the petitioners from the post of “Archaka” is in utter violation of principles of natural justice, without holding any inquiry or legal proceedings. She further contended that the impugned order passed by the first respondent is in utter violation of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and in violation of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”). Section 10(2) of the Act provides that an “Archaka”, who, on the date of the commencement of the Act, is performing in a temple without having requisite qualification stipulated in Section 10 of the Act, shall not be disqualified if he has attained the age of 40 years. It is further submitted that the first petitioner is aged about 50 years and has been carrying on pooja in the temple since 1984, when his father died. Similarly, the second respondent has been performing pooja along with the first petitioner for more than two decades. Hence, the petitioners could not be disqualified.
She further contended that Section 16 of the Act provides for penalty on a proven misconduct of an “Archaka” and further provides that no order imposing penalty under Section 16 shall be made except after giving such person a reasonable opportunity of being heard against the charge.
11. She further contended that the impugned order passed is in violation of Rule 17 of the Rules, 2002. Rule 17 provides for disciplinary action against the “Archakas” and temple servants. Clause (1) of Rule 17 provides for various penalties such as censure, fine, withholding increments, reduction of pay, recover from pay of any loss caused to institution and removal from service or dismissal from service. Clause (2) of Rule 17 provides that no order of imposing any penalty under the rules on any “Archaka” shall be passed unless he has been informed in writing of the ground on which it is proposed to take action and an adequate opportunity of defending himself has been afforded to him. Therefore, she sought to allow the writ petitions.
12. Per Contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for State Government reiterating the averments made in the statement of objections, contended that the petitioners were never appointed as an “Archaka” of the temple in question and they have not received any Tasdik from the respondent-State. After the death of the father of the second respondent, the petitioners performed pooja only till 31-3-2009, the petitioners were never allowed to perform pooja. He further contended that the petitioners have already filed suit in O.S.No.261/2011 seeking for declaration as they are “hereditary archakas” and for permanent injunction, the suit came to be dismissed. The petitioners cannot maintain parallel remedies both before the Civil Court and before this Court. He further contended that there are criminal cases pending against the first petitioner before the competent Court and the second petitioner has damaged the idol of Goddesses “Sri Maramma”, the same has been admitted by him. Therefore, sought for dismissal of the writ petitions.
13. Sri. Chandrashekar Gowda, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 10, sought to justify the impugned order passed by the first respondent and contended that it is only a temporary arrangement of “Archaka” subject to certain conditions, which has been fulfilled by the fourth respondent-Sri. A.C.Manjunath. He further submitted that on the basis of the criminal antecedents against the petitioners, the Authorities have appointed fourth respondent as “Archaka” subject to certain eligible conditions and subsequently, the fourth respondent has already fulfilled the conditions and accordingly he is performing pooja in “Maramma Temple”. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the writ petitions.
14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is specific case of the petitioners that they are the “hereditary archakas” of Maramma temple and have been performing pooja for long time and were receiving the Tasdik amount issued by the Deputy Commissioner from time to time. It is stated that the respondent-Authorities without holding any inquiry or issuing notice to the petitioners have issued a letter removing them from the post of “Archaka”. The petitioners have pointed out that the fourth respondent-Sri. A.C.Manjunath is a minor and he is not at all eligible to perform pooja in “Maramma Temple”. It is specific case of the State Government that the petitioners have never been appointed as “Archakas” to perform pooja in the said temple except after the death of the father of the second petitioner the petitioners were performing pooja till 31-3-2009. It is specifically contended that there are criminal cases filed against the first petitioner and the second petitioner has damaged the idol of Goddesses “Sri Maramma” and has agreed to pay Rs.5,000/- as penalty for damaging the idol.
15. The specific allegations have been made against the petitioners in the statement of objections filed by the State Government and the same has not been denied by filing any rejoinder. It is also specifically contended that the petitioners have already filed O.S.No.261/2011 before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Malavalli, Mandya District, seeking to declare them as “hereditary archakas” of “Maramma Temple” and for grant of permanent injunction; and the said suit has been dismissed. It is specific case of respondent Nos.4 to 10 that respondent No.4 is qualified and subsequently has fulfilled the conditions as per Annexure-A to perform pooja in the Maramma Temple. It is also not in dispute that there are criminal cases against the first petitioner and second petitioner has damaged the idol of Goddess “Sri Maramma”.
16. By a careful perusal of Annexure-A, which clearly depicts that the fourth respondent-Sri. A.C.Manjunath belongs to Sri. Linge Gowda’s family, therefore he has been appointed as an alternative “Archaka” subject to certain conditions. The petitioners have not produced any appointment orders issued by the Authorities in the present writ petitions and the petitioners have suppressed the fact that they have already filed the suit for declaring them as “hereditary archakas” and for permanent injunction. The petitioners have not come to this Court with clean hands, clean heart and clean mind.
17. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the suit filed by the petitioners in O.S.No.261/2011, dated 30-6-2017 has been dismissed and they have also filed R.A.No.31/2017, which is pending before Senior Civil Judge, Malavalli, Mandya District. In the absence of appointment orders, if any, issued by the respondents- Authority, the compliance of provisions of Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act & Rules would not arise. Ultimately, it is for the petitioners, who have already filed the appeal before the appellate court against the judgment and decree to approach Authority in accordance with law, in case they succeed in appeal. In view of the above, the petitioners have not made out any good ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the first respondent in exercise of the powers under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, writ petitions are dismissed.
SMJ Sd/-
JUDGE