IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.44112 OF 2016 (GM-R/C) BETWEEN:
SRI NAGENDRA RAO K A S/O ANANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS OCCUPATION: ARCHAK R/AT KADSUR VILLAGE HUNCHA HOBLI, HOSANAGAR TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT – 577436. … PETITIONER (By Mr. VIGNESHWAR S SHASTRI, ADV.,) AND:
1.STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560001.
2.THE COMMISSIONER FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT CHAMARAJPET BANGALORE – 560001.
3.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIMOGA SHIMOGA DISTRICT – 577436.
4.THE ASSISTANT COMMISISONER HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT , SAGAR TALUK SHIMOGA – 577436.
5.THE TAHSILDAR HOSANAGARA TALUK HOSANAGAR SHIMOGA – 577436.
6.THE REVENUE INSPECTOR AND ADMINISTRATOR SRI NAGENDRASWAMY TEMPLE HOSANAGARA TALUK SHIMOGA – 577436.
7.SRI LAKSHMINARAYAN BHATTA S/O BHEEMA BHATTA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS NAGARAHALLI VILLAGE, HUNCHA HOBLI HOSANAGAR TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT – 577436. … RESPONDENTS (By Mr. V SHIVAREDDY HCGP FOR R1 TO R6 Mr. B S MURALI ADV., FOR R7) - - -
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dtd.28.7.2016 passed by the R-2 as per Annexure-S and etc.
This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.Vighneshwar S.Shastri, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.V.Shivareddy, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 6.
Sri.B.S.Murali, learned counsel for the respondent No.7.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks a writ of certiorari for quashment of order dated 28.07.2016 passed by the Commissioner.
4. Facts giving rise to the filing of the petition briefly stated are that the petitioner claims to be the Archak of Sri Nagendraswamy temple of Nagarahalli Village. The Commissioner, by an order dated 20.04.2005, appointed the petitioner as Archak to perform pooja on every Monday and appointed respondent No.7 to perform pooja on all other days of the week except Monday by way of temporary arrangement. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision before the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2, by an order dated 25.03.2006, dismissed the revision petition preferred by the petitioner. The aforesaid order was the subject matter of challenge in W.P.No.821/2008 which was disposed of by a Bench of this Court by an order dated 15.03.2013 with the following directions:
“(i) The order at Annexure-J dated 27.9.2007 passed by the 2nd respondent – Commissioner is hereby quashed.
(ii) Similarly, the order at Annexure-H dated 28.9.2007 passed by the 1st respondent appointing the petitioner and the 6th respondent as permanent Archaks is also quashed.
(iii) The 1st respondent is directed to forward a fresh recommendation to the 2nd respondent for his consideration.
(iv) If the committee of management has already been constituted to manage the temple, the committee shall forward the recommendation to the 2nd respondent for appointment of Archaks as above.
(v) Fresh recommendation shall be forwarded by the 1st respondent or the committee of management, as the case may be, to the 2nd respondent within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(vi) The 2nd respondent is directed to consider the said recommendation and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the recommendations.
(vii) Till the disposal of the matter as above, the arrangement made under Annexure-C dated 20.4.2005 for performance of the pooja shall be continued.
(viii) Writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.”
5. Thereafter, the Commissioner has passed the impugned order dated 28.07.2016 by which the Commissioner has rejected the claim of the petitioner and has invited fresh applications for appointment of Archak.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Commissioner, while passing the impugned order, has neither considered the documents filed by the petitioner nor the documents filed by the respondent No.7 and in a cryptic and cavalier manner in violation of directions issued by a Bench of this Court as in the order dated 15.03.2013, has passed the impugned order. It is further submitted that the impugned order lacks application of mind. Learned counsel for the respondent No.7 has also supported the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner insofar as it pertains to the challenge to the order dated 28.07.2016 passed by the Commissioner.
7. I have considered the submissions made on both sides. Taking into account the fact that the impugned order dated 28.07.2016 has been passed by the Commissioner in violation of the directions contained in the order dated 15.03.2013 passed in W.P.No.821/2008 as well as the fact that while passing the impugned order, the Commissioner neither considered the submissions made and the documents filed by the petitioner as well as by respondent No.7, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is accordingly quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the Commissioner to decide the matter afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the respondent No.7, in accordance with law by a speaking order in the light of directions contained in the order dated 15.03.2013 passed in W.P.No.821/2008 within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE RV