Dismissed

Sri Patel Srinivas Rao v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Sept 2013WP/18712/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the appointment of respondents and accused them of being political functionaries under HE Act Sec. 25. Court dismissed petition as barred by delay and laches due to unexplained inaction over one year. Requested nomination as hereditary trustee; held separate proceedings required.

What did the court decide?

Petition not allowed; disposed accordingly; appropriate remedy in separate proceedings.

Sri Patel Srinivas Rao Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA

¶6

WRIT PETITION Nos.18712-18713/2013 (GM-R/C)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI PATEL SRINIVAS RAO AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, S/O LATE PATEL SHESHAPPAIAH, R/AT PATELS FARM HOUSE, 2ND BLOCK, KATIPALLA MANGALORE-575 030 ... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI ANANDARAMA PRASHANTH, ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE 560001 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶12

THE KARNATAKA RAJYA DHARMIKA PARISHAD OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS MALAI MAHADESHWARA SWAMI BHAVAN A.V. ROAD, CHAMARAJAPET BANGALORE 560004 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY

¶13

SRI ASHOK S/O LATE B.M SUNDARA, ADULT, SRI DEVI KRIPA, KRISHNAPURA, KATIPALLA-575 030, MANGALORE

¶14

¶15

SHASHIKALA SHETTY W/O VIVEKANANDA SHETTY, ADULT, GL 3/22, NEAR CHURCH, KATIPALLA, 575030 MANGALORE

¶16

KUSUMA S RAO W/O SURENDRA K RAO, ADULT, SUMA NIVASA, 3/462 KATIPALLA, 575030, MANGALORE

¶17

SRI. RAMACHANDRA S/O LATE THAMMANNA ALIAS DEVAPPA SHETTIGAR SHREYA RESIDENCY MAIN ROAD "SHREYA RESIDENCY" KATIPALLA, 575030 MANGALORE

¶18

PRAFULLA CHANDRA RAI K S/O JAYARAMA RAI, CHANDRA SHAALI SITE NO.133, 1ST BLOCK KATIPALLA-575030 MANGALORE

¶19

SRI RAVICHANDRA PANDIT S/O T. SHANKARA PANDIT, ADULT, "PANDIT HOUSE" SITE NO.439, 3RD BLOCK KATIPALLA-575 030, MANGALORE

¶20

SRI VINAYAKUMAR S/O M. KRISHNAN ADULT NO.29, 1ST BLOCK, GANESHAPURA KATIPALLA, 575030 MANGALORE

¶21

SRI VASANTHA RAO S/O PADMANABHA RAO, ADULT,SITE NO.620, 1ST BLOCK, KATIPALLA-575 030 MANGALORE.

¶22

... RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI E S INDIRESH, HCGP FOR R1 SRI B S SACHIN, ADV. FOR R2 SRI VINOD PRASAD, ADV. FOR R3-10)

¶24

¶25

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO; CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO ORDER DATED 17.3.2012 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2; QUASH THE ORDER DATED 17.3.2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-G PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 & DIRECT TO RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER AND NOMINATE THE PETITIONER TO THE COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT CONSTITUTED IN RESPECT OF SRI MAHAGANAPATHI TEMPLE, KATIPALLA, MANGALORE TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA

¶26

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING :

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 17.03.2012 (Annexure-G). The petitioner is also seeking for issue of mandamus to respondent No.2 to consider and nominate the petitioner to the Committee of management constituted in respect of Sri Mahaganapathi Temple, Katipalla, Mangalore Taluk, Dakshina Kannada.

¶29

The case of the petitioner is that he is a founder of

¶30

Sri Mahaganapathi Temple, Katipalla Mangalore which is his family deity. Presently the petitioner is aggrieved on two counts. Firstly with regard to the appointment of respondents No.3, 6 and 8 to the Managing Committee by

¶31

the order dated 17.03.2012 passed under Section 25 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act on

¶32

¶33

the ground that they are disqualified to be appointed as members of Managing Committee. The grievance of the petitioner is also that though he is a hereditary trustee his application for appointment as a Member of the Managing Committee has not been considered by the respondents. In that regard, to sustain the contentions, it is the case of the petitioner that as per the additional documents which have been produced along with the memo, details indicated therein would disclose that respondents No.3, 6 and 8 are functionaries of a Political Party from whom the details have been sought.

¶34

On that aspect of the matter, learned counsel for respondents No.3 to 10 has produced a communication dated 08.09.2013 before this Court, to point out that the President of the Ward relating to the Political Party concerned has issued a communication that the documents on which the petitioner has relied on is not depict the true state of affairs as per the records available with them and with specific reference to respondents No. 3, 6 and 8, it is indicated that the question of the said

¶35

¶36

persons occupying the post would not arise when they are not party members itself. To the said extent, no doubt, when the rival documents are relied on in a writ proceedings, this Court will not enter upon the disputes relating to the factual aspects of the matter inasmuch as no decision could be arrived at in a writ petition. Further, what is also to be noticed is that even if the petitioner were to contend that he is a hereditary trustee and his case should have been considered, the relief in that regard should be sought only in an appropriate proceedings and not by assailing notification which has been issued at this juncture, since if such right of hereditary trusteeship is declared, the consequence of the same would follow.

¶37

Having taken note of the rival contentions, the question is also as to whether this Court should exercise its discretion to look into these aspects of the matter relating to the validity of the impugned order or allow the petitioner to file an appropriate appeal or raise the issue before respondent No.2 who has passed the impugned order.

¶38

¶39

To the said extent, I am of the opinion that even to approach this Court there has been delay and laches which is not explained in the petition. To the said effect, it is to be noticed that the order impugned is dated 17.03.2012. The petitioner is a local person, the very allegation made in the writ petition is that the respondents against whom he has grievance for their appointment is on the ground that they were political functionaries. This would have been within the knowledge of the petitioner and nothing prevented the petitioner from either approaching the competent authorities or this Court within time.

¶40

On the other hand, it is seen that the petitioner has filed the instant petition only on 22.04.2013 that is after more than one year of the period indicated under the impugned order constituting the Committee for a period of three years had lapsed. Therefore, in such circumstance also, I am of the opinion that the impugned order does not call for interference in the instant petition.

¶41

¶42

If at all the petitioner has any other right to be agitated in any other forum, it would be open for the petitioner to do so. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the instant petition is not only barred by delay and laches, but is also devoid of merit to be considered in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶43

The petition stands disposed of accordingly. In view of the disposal of the petition itself, IA-II/2013 stands disposed of.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

JUDGE

¶46

akc/bms

Sri Patel Srinivas Rao v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Patel Srinivas Rao v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Naik @ Suresh Kumar P Vs State of Karnataka

Keshavamurthy K.S Vs the Commissioner

M/S Mysolite Products Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Dinesh Prasad Vs Karnataka State Financial Corporation

M/S Quest Laboratories Pvt. Ltd, Vs the Additional Director

Sri G Manjunath S/O Late Govindu Vs State of Karnataka