IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA WRIT PETITION NO.47710/2016 (GM-R/C) BETWEEN:
SRI MAHALINGESHWARA TEMPLE PANDESHWAR, MANGALORE-575 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, MR JEEVAN KUMAR. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HARIKRISHNA S. HOLLA, ADV.) AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS, MALAI MAHADESHWARA BUILDING, ALUR VENKATA RAO ROAD, CHAMRAJPET, BANGALORE – 560 018.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, MANGALORE – 575 001.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, MANGALORE – 575 001.
4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560 001.
5. SRI. SRIDHAR, ADMNISTRATOR, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DIVISION, OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANGALORE, D.K. – 575 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.A. SUBRAMANI, HCGP. FOR R1 – 5.
SRI. B.S. SACHIN, ADV. FOR R-2.
SRI. H.R. ANANTHA KRISHNAMURTHY, ADV. FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANT ON IA 1/17 R5 DELETED V/O. DATED 08/09/2016) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT IN VIEW OF ORDER OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN W.P. 64805-64868/2011 STRIKING DOWN THE ACT NO. 27/2011 THE RESPONDENTS HAVE NO POWER TO APPOINT AN ADMINISTRATOR TO PETITIONER TEMPLE AT ANNEX-K AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 31.05.2016 as at Annexure-J to the petition, wherein the Executive Officer is appointed as the Administrator.
2. Though a contention is urged herein that the order appointing the Executive Officer as the Administrator of the Temple would not be justified, in view of the amended provision contained in Section 25 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act being struck down by this Court in W.P.Nos.64805- 64868/2011 dated 17.11.2015, the fact that the said issue is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.C.Nos.6834-6959/2016 is the admitted position. In the said proceedings, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has stayed the operation of the order dated 17.11.2015 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court.
3. If that be the position, at this point in time, the provision as contained in Section 25 of the Act is available to be put into operation and as such, the order dated 31.05.2016 impugned herein is issued in the light of the said existing provision. Hence, at this juncture, there is no reason for this Court to entertain this petition and interfere with the order impugned herein. However, all such action pursuant to such order would remain subject to result of the decision to be taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in that light, if at that stage, the petitioner becomes entitled to assail any action in that regard, including the appointment of the Administrator pursuant to the impugned order, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach this Court at that point in time.
With such liberty, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ST