1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.BOPANNA WRIT PETITION NO.53460 OF 2017 (GM R/C) BETWEEN:
SRI. R.K. SRINIVAS SHASTRY S/O K. RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS PRIEST CHOWDESHWARI TEMPLE NEELATOURU VILLAGE RONOOR HOBLI SRINIVASAPURA TALUK (BY SRI.N. SURENDRA KUMAR, ADV.) AND:
1. THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE MUJARI BRANCH MULTISTORIED BUILDING BANGALORE – 560 001 2. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER FOR RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH ROAD BANGALORE – 560 027 ... PETITIONER 3. THE COMMISSIONER FOR RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT ALUR VENKATARAO ROAD CHAMARAJPET BANGALORE – 560 018 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR – 563 101 5. THE THASILDAR KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR – 563 101 (BY SRI. M.A.SUBRAMANI, HCGP) ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-4 TO FIX TASTIK ALLOWANCE OF RS.45,000/- CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION PRODUCED BY THE PETITIONER AT ANNEXURE – B, ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Learned Government Advocate to accept notice for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and file memo of appearance in four weeks.
2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking issue of mandamus to direct respondent No.4 – Deputy Commissioner to fix Tastik Allowance of Rs.45,000/- as sought in the representation. The petitioner claims that he is an Archaka of Chowdeshwari Temple, Neelatouru Village, Ronoor Hobli, Srinivasapura Taluk, Kolar District. Inspite of the land said to have been owned by the said temple, being denied, the Tastik allowance has also not been fixed by respondent No.4 – Deputy Commissioner. In that regard petitioner has made representation dated 19.12.2016 as at Annexure-B. Since, the same has not received consideration the petitioner is before this Court in this petition.
3. In a matter of the present nature, the right of the petitioner to seek for such determination of the Tastik allowance and as to whether in that circumstances, the prayer as made in the representation is required to be granted by respondent No.4 are all issues which are to be taken note by respondent No.4 while considering the representation submitted by the petitioner. Hence, all that is necessary to be directed at this point is that respondent No.4 shall take note of the representation and pass orders in accordance with law after a detailed consideration.
4. To enable the same, the petitioner shall now submit one more copy of the representation along with all supporting documents, to respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 thereupon shall consider and pass the orders as expeditiously as possible but not later than two months from the date of submission of a copy.
Petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE GH