IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER , 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA WRIT PETITION No.55096/2017 (GM-R/C) BETWEEN:
SRI. R. K. SRINIVAS SHASTRY S/O K RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, PRIEST SRI SOMESHWARA TEMPLE DAMBAL GRAMA RONOOR HOBLI SRINIVASAPURA TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563101 (BY SRI SURENDRA KUMAR N, ADV.) ... PETITIONER 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 3. THE COMMISSIONER FOR RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT ALUR VENKATARAO ROAD CHAMARAJPET BANGALORE-560018 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR-563101 5. THE THASILDAR KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR-563101 ... RESPONDENTS THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO DIRECT THE R-4 TO FIX TASTIK ALLOWANCE OF RS. 39,000/- CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION PRODUCED BY THE PETITIONER AT ANNEX-B.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Learned Government Advocate to accept notice for respondents No.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 to fix the Tastik allowance by considering the representation as at Annexure ‘B’ to the petition.
3. The petitioner claims to be an Archaka in Someshwara Swamy Temple situate at Dambal Grama, Ronoor Hobli, Srinivasapura Taluk, Kolar District. In that regard the petitioner made a representation dated 19.12.2016 to respondent No.4 – Deputy Commissioner stating the details of the property which was owned by the temple and in that light the petitioner contends that at present keeping those aspects in view the Tastik allowance is necessary to be fixed. Since the same has not been considered, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. In a matter of the present nature, the fact as to whether the claim as put forth by the petitioner is justified and in that regard whether the Tastik allowance is required to be fixed are all factual aspects which are required to be taken note by respondent No.4 and appropriate orders are necessary to be passed on consideration of the representation said to have been filed by the petitioner. In that view, all that is necessary at this stage is to direct respondent No.4 to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
5. To enable the same the petitioner shall file one more copy of the representation with all supporting documents to respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 on receipt of the same shall verify and pass orders as expeditiously as possible but not later than six weeks from the date on which the representation is filed.
Petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE akc/bms