1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Sri K Shivaraj Shetty vs State Of Karnataka And Others

High Court Of Karnataka|28 February, 2019


Sri. K. Shivaraj Shetty, S/o late K. Narayan Shetty, Aged about 63 years, Sunkadakatte Koradabbu, Daivasthana, Urva Store, Mangaluru – 575 004.
(By Sri.Sanathkumar Shetty K., Advocate) AND:
1. State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary, To the Revenue Department, M.S. Building, Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Department, 2nd Floor, Sri. Male Mahedeshwara Vartha Bhavana, Allur Venktrao Road, Chamarajapet, Bengaluru – 560 018.
… Petitioner 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments, Mangaluru – 575 001.
4. The Secretary, Sunkadakatte Kordabbu Daivasthana, Poshaka Samithi (Regd) Urva Stores, Mangaluru – 575 004.
… Respondents (By Sri.V. Shivareddy, HCGP for R1 to R3;
Sri. Pundikai Ishwara Bhat, Advocate for R4) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash order dated 11.01.2019 at Annexure-A passed by the R-2 to the extent of it granting permission in favour of the R4 holding Harike Nemothsava on 2nd and 3rd of March 2019, and etc.
This Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri. Sanathkumar Shetty K, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri. V. Shivareddy, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Sri. Pundikai Ishwara Bhat, learned counsel for respondent No.4.
Petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition, petitioner inter alia has prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 11.01.2019 passed by respondent No.2 to the extent of granting permission in favour of respondent No.4 for holding Harike Nemothsava on 2nd and 3rd of March, 2019.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner, while inviting the attention of this Court to the judgment dated 18.11.2008 passed in Regular Second Appeal No.180/2007 c/w Regular Second Appeal No.1828/2008, submitted that in paragraph No.4 of the aforesaid judgment, a finding has been recorded in favour of the petitioner that petitioner is in possession of suit-Temple and he is managing the affairs of the temple. It is further submitted that on an earlier occasion also respondent No.4-Samithi has approached this Court and its relief to perform the pooja was refused by order dated 03.02.2009 and therefore, respondent No.4 should be restrained from performing the pooja.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.4 submitted that the question “who has the right to manage the temple and how the temple annual ceremonies are to be performed” is yet to be adjudicated by the Authority. It is also submitted that respondent No.4 has been performing the pooja from the last few years.
5. The aforesaid aspect of the matter is not fairly disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner and it is submitted that the aforesaid dispute is pending before respondent No.2.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. Perused the records. Taking into account the aforesaid submission that the dispute with regard to the right to manage the temple and to perform the annual ceremonies is pending adjudication before respondent No.2 and even though the order was passed on 11.01.2019, the petitioner has approached this Court in filing the petition on 22.02.2019, which has come up for consideration today i.e., 28.02.2019 and in the facts of the case, I deem it appropriate to permit respondent No.4 to perform the pooja on 2nd and 3rd of March, 2019 in the temple in question.
8. It is made clear that mere performance of pooja by respondent No.4 in the temple in question on the aforesaid dates shall not create any right or equity in favour of respondent No.4 and respondent No.2 shall make endeavor to settle the dispute between the parties with regard to “right to manage the affairs of the temple and performance of the annual ceremonies” expeditiously preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties.
Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/-
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.

Sri K Shivaraj Shetty vs State Of Karnataka And Others


High Court Of Karnataka

28 February, 2019
  • Alok Aradhe