IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION NO.9233/2017 (GM-R/C) BETWEEN:
Sri.Raghavendara Bhat @ Raghavendra Ashranna, S/o Sri.Vasudeva Bhat, Aged about 42 years, Lakshminarayana Kripa, Near Sri.Durga Parameshwari Temple, Iruvailu-574144, Mangalore Taluk, D.K.District.
(By Sri.G.Ravishankar Shastry, Advocate) AND:
1. The Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Endowments, Chamarajapet, Bengaluru-560018.
2. The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Endowments, Mangalore, D.K.District-575001.
3. The Zilla Dharmika Parishath, Having its Registered office at Mangalore, D.K.District-575001. Represented by its Secretary.
… Petitioner 4. The Managing Committee, Sri.Durga Parameshwari Temple, Sriskhethra, Iruvail-574144, Mangalore Taluk, D.K., Represented by its President/Secretary.
.... Respondents (By Sri.Sridhar N Hegde, HCGP for R1&R2;
Ms.Sadana Desai, Adv., for R3;
Sri.Kethan Kumar, Adv. for Sri.Ashwith K. Adv. for R4) ***** This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to directs respondents not to interfere with duties, services and in functioning of the petitioner as the hereditary chief priest/archak and the member of the Managing Committee of Sri.Durga Parameshwari Temple, Sri.Kshethra Iruvailu, Mangalore Taluk, D.K.District except with due process of law and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER None appear for the impleading applicant.
The petitioner in the above writ petition sought for writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with duties, services and functioning of the petitioner as the hereditary chief Priest/Archak and the member of the Managing Committee of Sri Durga Parameshwari Temple, Sri Kshethra Iruvailu, Mangalore Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District, except with due process of law.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that Sri Durga Parameshwari Temple, Sriskhethra, Iruvail is notified as ‘C’ category temple under the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity). The petitioner is a chief Archak and a hereditary trustee of the temple. The petitioner’s grandfather was the main Archak and the Managing trustee of the temple. Thereafter, the petitioner is performing his duties as Archak/Priest and trustee of the temple. After commencement of the Act, the petitioner was appointed as member of the respondent No.4- Committee vide order dated 03.08.2007 passed by the respondent No.2. Thereafter, the petitioner was in the Managing Committee in his capacity as an Archak and was drawing a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month as salary. The petitioner has submitted an application for his appointment as a member to the Managing Committee in the capacity of Archak/Priest and accordingly he was appointed.
3. It is further case of the petitioner that the petitioner is taking active role in the management and religious ceremonies and rituals of the temple. Further, every year, annual jaathra festival will be held in the said temple and the petitioner’s name was printed in the invitation cards in his capacity as chief priest. The petitioner has been rendering unblemished services to the temple for the past two decades and his right as a hereditary Archak and trustee was recognized by the respondents. But, now some of the persons in the Managing Committee who have enmity towards the petitioner are causing disturbance and preventing him from discharging his duties as Archak and member of the Managing Committee which is highly illegal. It is further contended that absolutely there is no complaint or allegation or disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. Unfortunately, some of the members in the Managing Committee are preventing the petitioner from performing his duties as Archak and member of the Managing Committee. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court for the relief sought for.
3. The respondent No.4 filed objections and contended that there are allegations against the petitioner and sought for dismissal of the present writ petition.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties to lis.
5. Sri G. Ravishankar Shastry, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition contended that the action and the conduct of the Managing Committee in preventing the petitioner from performing his duties as Archak/Priest and the member of the Managing Committee is arbitrary, illegal and without any justification. The petitioner has been working as Archaka/Priest and member of the Managing Committee and his rights are recognized by the respondents and he has been appointed by the various Government Orders and his appointment still subsisting. Therefore, the respondent No.4- Management cannot deprive the right of the petitioner to perform pooja and to discharge his duties as member of the Managing Committee. He has rendered his unblemished service for morethan two decades and without due process of law, the respondent No.4 – Managing Committee cannot interfere with the performance of the pooja of the temple as a chief priest/Archaka or member of the Managing Committee. Therefore, he sought to allow the present writ petition .
6. Per contra Sri Kethan Kumar, learned counsel for Sri Ashwith K., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 reiterating the averments made in the statement of objections contended that there are allegations against the petitioner and further filed enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer appointed by the Managing Committee before this Court wherein, the enquiry report submitted clearly indicates that the allegations made against the petitioner are not proved. The Said enquiry report is taken on record.
7. Learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the petitioner has been appointed as a Archaka/Priest for Sri Durga Parameshwari Temple and he has been discharging his duty without giving any room for any allegations. Said submission of the learned HCGP is placed on record.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was appointed as a hereditary Archaka/Priest and trustee of Sri Durga Parameshwari temple. It is further case that on 03.08.2007, the respondent No.2 appointed the petitioner as member of the respondent No.4- Managing Committee and he was working in his capacity as Archaka and was drawing monthly salary of Rs.7,000/-. Except the Managing Committee, till today, his appointment is not disturbed by any competent authority.
9. It is also not in dispute that though allegations are made against the petitioner in the statement of objections filed to the main writ petition, today Sri Kethan Kumar, learned counsel fairly and rightly files a memo along with enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer stating that the allegations made against the petitioner are not established/proved.
10. In view of the same, the Managing Committee-respondent No.4 shall not prevent the petitioner from functioning him as Archaka/Priest and member of the Managing Committee of the temple without due process of law. Since the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer is in favour of the petitioner, unless and until any allegations made are proved, without due process of law, the respondent No.4 cannot take any action against the petitioner.
11. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed, writ of mandamus is issued directing the Respondent No.4- Managing Committee not to interfere with the functioning of the petitioner as Archaka/Priest and member of the Managing committee of Sri Durga Parameshwari temple, Sriskhethra, Iruvail, without due process of law. However, it is made clear that, if the petitioner involve in any illegal activity in his capacity as Archaka/Priest and member of the Managing Committee and obstruct the pooja of the temple, it is always open for the respondent No.4- Managing Committee to take action against the petitioner only in accordance with law.
In view of the above, the impleading application is rejected with liberty to the impleading applicant to take appropriate steps against the petitioner, only in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE PN/