IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.58182 OF 2014 (GM-R/C) BETWEEN:
Sri Someshawara Temple, Subramanya Represented by its Administrator & Controller, Sri Sri Vidyaprasanna Theertha Swamiji, Pointiff, Samputa Narasimha Swamy Mutt, Kukke Subramanya, Sullia Taluk, Dakshina Kannada Dist., Represented by its GPA Holder, Sri.S.R.Prasanna, B.E Consultant Engineer, No.24, 1st Main Road, Seshadripuram, P.B.No.2018, Bangalore-560020. …Petitioner (By Sri H.R.Ananthakrishna Murthy, Advocate) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Endowments, Bangalore-560001.
2. The Assistant Commissioner President District Endowments Board, Office of the DC, Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowments Department, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore-575001.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Office of the DC, Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowments Department, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore-575001. … Respondents (By Smt.Niloufer Akbar, AGA) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned order dated 18.04.2012 passed by the R-2 Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, the R-2 herein, Vide Annexure-D and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R This writ petition is directed against the order dated 18.04.2012 (Annexure-D) passed by respondent No.2, appointing the Management Committee, for a period of three years.
2. The petitioner-Agrahara Someshwara Temple is situated in Kukke Subramanya, which is not notified under the “Karnataka Hindu Relegious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997” (the ‘Act’ for short). Since it is not notified under the Act, the respondents have no power to appoint the Committee under Section 25 of the Act. In spite of that respondent No.2 has appointed a Committee. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. Sri. H.R.Ananthakrishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per Annexure-A notification issued by the State Government under the Act, the petitioner’s temple was not notified under the Act. Once temple is not notified, the respondents cannot appoint the management committee under Section 25 of the Act. Hence, Annexure-D is unsustainable. He further contended that by Annexure- E dated 26.04.2012, the correspondence letter written between the Deputy Commissioner and the Hindu Religious and charitable Endowments Board, Bengaluru stating that by mistake the petitioner’s temple has not been included in the notification, instead of Kukke Subramanya, at item No.16 it has been mentioned as ‘Ivaranadu’. Therefore he requested the Commissioner to obtain orders from the Government for rectification of the notification. He further submits that if they want to make any such rectification, petitioner should be given an opportunity of hearing.
4. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is a Mutt.* Hence, it cannot be notified under the Act. In spite of that if Government wants to notify the temple, before doing that, the State Government has to hear the petitioner and pass an order.
5. Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents submits that vide Annexure-D the Committee has been constituted for a period of three years by order dated 18.04.2012 and that three years term is over. She further submits that in the notification, Annexure-A by mistake instead of Kukke Subramanya, at item No.16 it has mentioned * Corrected Vide Court Order dated:11.04.2019 ‘Ivarnadu’. Therefore the Deputy Commissioner has written a letter to the Commissioner to rectify the mistake by obtaining orders from the Government.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. In respect of prayer No-1 is concerned, the prayer has become infructuous, in view of the fact that the term of the Committee has been for a period of three years, which is already over.
8. It is not in dispute that the Government has issued a notification under the Act, whereby Annexure-A in item No.16, it is mentioned that ‘Ivaranadu Agrahara Someshwara Devaru’, in fact, the petitioner’s temple is situated in Kukke Subramanya, Sulya Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District. Vide Annexure-E, the Deputy Commissioner has written a letter to the Commissioner, stating that by mistake, instead of Kukke Subramanya, ‘Ivaranadu’ has been mentioned in the notification at Annexure-A and he has sought for rectification from the Government for issuing a fresh notification.
9. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that if the respondents were to include the petitioner’s temple and notify the same under the Act, rectifying the mistake, respondents are directed to issue notice to the petitioner to afford an opportunity of hearing. After hearing the petitioner, respondents shall take a decision in accordance with law.
With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE rv