IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.L.NARAYANA SWAMY ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.16521/2011 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1. SRI. MURTHY KALIDASA BHATTA S/O LATE MURTHY GANESHA BHATTA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDENT OF MAIN ROAD POST KOLLUR-576 220 KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT 2. SRI. MURTHY SRISHA BHATTA S/O LATE MURTHY GANESHA BHATTA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDENT OF “SATHYA”
OPPOSITE SREE MOOKAMBIKA TEMPLE POST: KOLLUR-576 220 KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT ... APPELLANTS (BY SHRI. K. CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS & CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS BANGALORE 2. EXECUTIVE OFFICER SREE MOOKAMBIKA TEMPLE POST: KOLLUR-576 220 KUNDPAURA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT 3. ADMINISTRATOR (DEPUTY COMMISSIONER) HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS & CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI 4. SRI. K.N. GOPALAKRISHNA ADIGA S/O LATE NARSI SUBRAYA ADIGA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS CAR STREET, KOLLURU KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT ... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI. S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SHRI. M.E. NAGESH, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.27880/2010(GM-R/C) DATED 22.08.2011.
THIS WRIT APPEAL, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 31.01.2019, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR J, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-
J U D G M E N T This appeal is presented by unsuccessful petitioners challenging order dated 22.08.2011 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge dismissing W.P.No.27880/2010.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred as per their status before the Hon’ble Single Judge.
3. We have heard Shri K. Chandranath Ariga, learned advocate for petitioners, Shri S.S.Mahendra, learned AGA for respondents No.1 to 3 and Shri M.E.Nagesh, learned advocate for respondent No.4.
4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, petitioners are children of one Shri Murthy Ganesha Bhatta. He was carrying on duties of ‘Murthy Dharaka’ namely, to carry the deity in Shri Mookambika Temple at Kolluru. On 04.09.1995, he submitted a representation to the Administrative Officer stating that he was keeping indifferent health and requested that his son Shri Murthy Kalidasa Bhatta, who was assisting him for six years to be appointed as ‘Murthy Dharaka’. Accordingly, by an order dated 30.11.1995, Shri Kalidasa Bhatta was appointed as ‘Murthy Dharaka’ and he was performing the said duty. He submitted an application on 23.12.2005 to permit his brother Shri Srisha Bhatta to carry on the same duties of ‘Murthy Dharaka’ for fifteen days during the second fortnight of Hindu Calendar ‘Krishna Paksha’. By a resolution dated 26.03.2007, the Executive Committee of the temple accepted Shri Murthy Kalidasa’s request and permitted his brother Shri Srisha Bhatta to perform the duties. The said order was challenged by fourth respondent in W.P.No.13646/2007. This Court by order dated 08.12.2008 disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to seek redressal before the competent authority as per the provisions of Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997. Accordingly, fourth respondent initiated proceedings before the Endowment Commissioner. By order dated 03.07.2010, the Endowment Commissioner set aside the order dated 10.04.2007 passed by the Executive Officer of the temple authorising Shri Srisha Bhatta to perform temple duties. The said order was challenged in the instant writ petition and the same has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Single Judge. Hence, this writ appeal.
5. Shri Ariga, learned advocate for the petitioners contended that petitioners and their forefathers are hereditary ‘Murthy Dharakas’. They have been performing duties of carrying the deity, filling of water and performing pooja etc. He adverted to the temple register produced as Annexure-E to the writ petition and urged that column 7 contains name of Shri Kalidasa Bhatta and column 11 shows that the post is hereditary in nature. He argued that petitioners’ father Shri Ganesha Bhatta was performing the duties and as per his request, Shri Murthy Kalidasa Bhatta was appointed as ‘Murthy Dharaka’. He further submitted that duties of ‘Murthy Dharaka’ are very sacred and he is required to carry the deity on his back three times a day on all days. His brother Shri Srisha Bhatta was also assisting him. Accordingly, he requested the temple authorities to permit his brother to carry on the duties in the second half of Hindu Calendar month. Fourth respondent is inimically disposed towards petitioners and challenged the permission granted by the Executive Officer. The Commissioner of Endowment without proper application of mind, misconstrued the permission as a fresh appointment of a second ‘Murthy Dharaka’. He adverted to another order dated 12.05.1995 passed by the Endowment Commissioner and contended that it is recorded in the said order that the Assistant Commissioner after verification of records has stated in his report dated 17.08.1991 that Shri Ganesha Bhatta’s father, Shri Kadu Bhatta was performing duties and thereafter, Shri Ganesha Bhatta has performed the duties for 52 years till 1939. He also pointed out that it is further recorded that the temple duties were being performed for nearly seven generations.
6. In substance, Shri Ariga argued that until Shri Kalidasa Bhatta submitted his request on 23.12.2005 to the temple authorities to permit his brother to perform the duties in the second half of the Hindu Calendar month, there was no controversy at all. The Endowment Commissioner as also the Hon’ble Single Judge have misconstrued the permission given to Shri Srisha Bhatta by the temple authorities as an appointment to a non-existing post. He prayed that to put the controversy at rest, first petitioner Shri Murthy Kalidasa Bhatta may be permitted to withdraw his request made on 23.12.2005.
7. To a query made by us to Shri Mahendra, learned Additional Government Advocate, as to who was performing duties of ‘Murthy Dharaka’ prior to 23.12.2005, we were informed that Shri Kalidasa Bhatta was performing the duties. This fact is not denied by fourth respondent who has begun the controversy by filing W.P.No.13646/2007.
8. We have carefully considered the submissions of learned advocates for the parties, learned AGA and perused the material papers on record.
9. Undisputed facts of the case are, Shri Kalidasa Bhatta, the first petitioner was performing the duties of ‘Murthy Dharaka’ prior to submitting an application on 23.12.2005 requesting the temple authorities to permit his brother Shri Srisha Bhatta to perform the duties of ‘Murthy Dharaka’ during ‘Krishna Paksha’, the second half of Hindu Calendar month. Temple Management Committee accepted his request and passed an office order on 10.04.2007. Pursuant to litigation initiated by the fourth respondent herein, the Endowment Commissioner, set-aside Temple’s office order dated 10.04.2007. Thus, there was no dispute with regard to performing the duties of ‘Murthy Dharaka’ prior to 23.12.2005. The entire controversy has emanated with Shri Kalidasa Bhatta submitting his request to permit his brother also to perform duties of ‘Murthy Dharaka’ during the second half of Hindu Calendar month. Shri Ariga is right in his submission that facts recorded in order dated 12.05.1995, in CR:19/91-92 show that the Assistant Commissioner in his report had stated that petitioners’ family has been performing temple duties for seven generations. The same is also supported by the temple register produced at Annexure-E, wherein names of petitioners’ father and grandfather are mentioned at serial number 10.
10. To put the controversy at rest, Shri Ariga has sought leave of this Court to permit first petitioner to withdraw his request made to the temple authorities. In view of the facts recorded hereinabove and submissions made by learned advocates for the parties, we are of the view that the said request is reasonable.
11. In the circumstances, we permit the first petitioner Shri Murthy Kalidasa Bhatta to withdraw his request made to the temple authorities on 23.12.2005 to 1- 0-
WA No.16521/2011 permit his brother Shri Srisha Bhatta to perform temple duties. Consequently, the office order dated 10.04.2007 and all subsequent proceedings thereon including order dated 03.07.2010 passed by the Endowment Commissioner and order dated 22.08.2011 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in W.P.No.27880/2010 become redundant and they are accordingly set-aside. Resultantly, the position of first petitioner as it stood prior to 23.12.2005 shall stand restored.
12. This writ appeal is accordingly disposed of.
No costs.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE yn.
Sd/-
JUDGE