IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA W.P.Nos.18155/2011 & 18456-464/2011 (GM-R/C) BETWEEN:
1. UMA MAHESH S/O N C SRIKANTAIAH AGED 30 YEARS 2. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O DYAVANNA AGED 50 YEARS 3. RAJA S/O KUSAPPA AGED 45 YEARS 4. MANJUNATHA S/O SWAMY AGED 25 YEARS 5. RAVI KUMAR S/O CHANDRASHEKARAIAH AGED 38 YEARS 6. NANJUNDASWAMY S/O LINGAPPA AGED 45 YEARS 7. SRIKANTASWAMY S/O PARAMESHWARAIAH AGED 58 YEARS 8. PUTTASWAMY S/O GANAPATHAPPA AGED 55 YEARS 9. NAVEENA S/O NAGARAJ AGED 25 YEARS 10. RAKESH KUMAR S/O MAHADEVA AGED 30 YEARS KAVAL MANAGER PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 10 ARE WORKING AS KAVAL MANAGER DODDABASAVANNAGUDI SRIKANTESHWARASWAMY TEMPLE NANJANGUD, MYSORE DISTRICT.
(BY MS.SANGEETHA MANJUNATH, ADV. FOR SMT.K.K.THAYAMMA, ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY MUZRAI DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING, BANGALORE.
2. THE COMMISSIONER MUZRAI DEPARTMENT SRI MALE MAHADESHWAR BHAVAN CHAMARAJPET BANGALORE- 560018.
3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER SRIKANTESHWARASWAMY TEMPLE NANJANAGUD MYSORE DISTRICT.
4. SHIVAKUMAR ... PETITIONERS S/O NANJUNDAPPA AGED 30 YEARS SRIKANTESHWARASWAMY TEMPLE NANJANAGUD MYSORE DISTRICT.
5. N M MANJESH S/O M C MALLIKARJUNAIAH AGED 36 YEARS NO.11, DEVIRAMMA LAYOUT NANJANAGUD MYSORE DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3 SRI V MANJUNATH, ADV. FOR R5 R4 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R2 ON 29.03.2011 MARKED AS ANN-L & GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioners filed the present writ petitions to issue writ of certiorari and to quash the order passed by the second respondent on 29-3-2011, Annexure-L, permitting the “Kavalugaras” to perform pooja according to manual of Nanjangudu Sri Sri Kanteshwara Temple in Sri Doddabasaveshwaraswami Gudi on Saradi/rotation basis each month.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners are 10 kavalugaras who acquired hereditary right to do Saradi Pooja in Doddabasaveshwaraswami Gudi in Sri Sri Kanteshwara Temple, Nanjangudu. There are 12 kavalugaras in Sri Sri Kanteshwara Temple. Out of 12 kavalugaras only 10 kavalugaras are entitled to do pooja as per their Saradi according to manual of Nanjangudu Sri Sri Kanteshwara Temple. As per temple manual, the remaining kavalugaras will do duty in the temple as assigned by kavalu manager. The 10 kavalugaras are performing their duties on Saradi basis and it is the custom being followed since time immemorial. The procedures to be followed for appointment of kavalugaras to do pooja in Doddabasaveshwaraswami Gudi/Doddabasavannagudi reads as under:
Kavalugara of Doddabasaveshwaraswami Gudi shall have hereditary right.
There should be only 10 kavalugaras in Doddabasaveshwaraswami Gudi.
The kavalugara should belong to “Thammadi Community”.
3. The fourth respondent was appointed as kavalugara of Ganapathy Temple on humanitarian grounds as he has no means for his livelihood. The fifth respondent who was appointed as kavalugara of Sri Sri Kanteshwara Temple does not belong to “Thammadi Community” and he has no hereditary right. The application filed by father of the fifth respondent requesting to do Saradi Pooja in Basavannagudi was not considered by Executive Officer in 1993 itself and the application filed by the fourth respondent in 2003 to do Saradi Pooja in Doddabasaveshwaraswami Gudi was also not considered by the Executive Officer. Even in 1992 the Muzrai Commissioner issued circulation on 28-1-1992 warning not meddle with the customary and pooja custom being followed in the temple since long time, the Commissioner warned the Executive Officer that he would take disciplinary action against such official who interfere in custom being followed in temple. Inspite of the same suppressing the customary hereditary right being followed from time immemorial overlooking objection filed by Kavalu Managers and temple manual. The Executive Officer recommended the name of respondent Nos.4 & 5 to do the Saradi Pooja in Doddabasaveshwaraswami Gudi. The Commissioner without verifying, blindly approved the report sent by the third respondent-Executive Officer and the third respondent issued letter to Manager to give special charge of Saradi Pooja of Doddabasaveshwaraswami Gudi to respondent Nos.4 & 5. It is also to be noticed that there is no specific order made in Annexure-L that the Saradi Pooja in Doddabasavannagudi should be performed only by respondent Nos.4 & 5. Hence, the writ petitions are filed before this Court.
4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties to the lis.
5. Ms. Sangeetha Manjunath, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order passed by the second respondent dated 29-3-2011 is erroneous, contrary to law and liable to be quashed. She further contended that second respondent failed to notice that as per temple manual there is a provision which indicates only 10 kavalugaras to be appointed to do pooja in Doddabasaveshwaraswami Gudi including Kavalu Managers who entrust the work to kavalugaras on rotation basis. In the said temple manual, there is no provision to place 12 kavalugaras instead of 10 kavalugaras to perform pooja on rotation basis.
6. She further contended that respondent Nos.2 & 3 failed to notice that the fourth respondent was appointed as kavalugara of Ganapathy Temple and garden on humanitarian ground as he had no means to live and also he has no hereditary right. It is further to be noticed that there is no provision in temple manual to appoint beyond 10 kavalugaras and the fourth respondent would not be allowed to serve in Doddabasaveshwaraswami Gudi/Doddabasavannagudi. She further contended that the fifth respondent was appointed as kavalugara in Sri Sri Kanteshwara Temple/Srikanteshwaraswamy Temple as he does not belongs to “Thammadi Community” and he has no hereditary right to perform Saradi Pooja in Doddabasaveshwaraswami Gudi. Therefore, she sought to allow the writ petitions.
7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri. V. Manjunath, learned counsel for respondent No.5 sought to justify the impugned order passed by the second respondent. The fifth respondent filed statement of objections and denied the averments made in the writ petitions and contended that as per the temple manual only 10 kavalugaras shall do the duty in Doddabasavannagudi on Saradi basis is admitted as true. The Kavalu Manager shall only entrust the work to kavalugaras and he has no duty to perform pooja on Saradi basis in Doddabasavannagudi. It is also false to aver that the kavalugaras are appointed from “Thammadi Community” of Lingayaths. There is no such caste called “Thammadi”, the names of caste and sub- caste as declared by the Karnataka State Government as per Annexure-R1 clearly depicts that there is no such sub- caste called “Thammadi”. However, the fourth respondent has been appointed as kavalugara and therefore has a right and duty to perform pooja in Saradi basis. It is further contended that it is false to state that N.C.Mallikarjuna the father of the fifth respondent was not working as a kavalugara, at any time at Doddabasavannagudi from the time of his great grand father. The fact is that the father of fifth respondent was a kavalugara and had sought permission to perform pooja on Saradi basis. It is also false to state that the kavalugaras shall be 10 in numbers including the Kavalu Managers and it is to be noted that Kavalu Managers are appointed separately and kavalugaras are appointed separately. As per temple manual there are 10 kavalugaras and 2 Kavalu Managers. Therefore, sought to dismiss the writ petitions.
8. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, it is clear that according to the petitioners only 10 kavalugaras are to be appointed to perform pooja in Doddabasavannagudi on rotation basis each month as per temple manual, the same is not disputed by the fifth respondent while filing objections. It is only stated that apart from 10 kavalugaras, two Kavalu Managers are also permitted to perform pooja in temple on the basis of the temple manual. The material on record clearly depicts that as per Annexure-L, the petitioners-kavalugaras who are performing pooja in Doddabasavannagudi on rotation basis each month is not disturbed.
9. Admittedly, appointments if any, made by respondent Nos.1 to 3 has not at all been questioned before this Court. By careful reading of the impugned order passed by the second respondent at Annexure-L, clearly depicts that all the kavalugaras are permitted to do pooja in Doddabasavannagudi on rotation basis one month each. Admittedly, the petitioners are not affected by the impugned order passed by the second respondent at Annexure-L. In the absence of any violation of statutory rights of the petitioners performing pooja on rotation basis, the writ petitions filed for the relief sought for is not maintainable.
10. In view of the above, the petitioners have not made any prima-facie case to interfere with the impugned order passed by the second respondent under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed off. However, it is open for the petitioners to approach first respondent, if respondent Nos.4 & 5 appointed as Kavalu Managers against any statutory provision, it is for the first respondent to proceed in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE SMJ