Dismissed

Sri T R Narendra v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Mar 2022MFA/2646/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the appointment of members to a temple managing committee, alleging procedural violations of Rule 22 and the unsuitability of one appointee. The court dismissed the appeal, ruling the appellant lacked locus standi as he was not an applicant and finding the appointment procedure substantial.

What did the court decide?

The appeal with no merit is dismissed.

Sri T R Narendra Vs the State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶5

MFA NO.2646 OF 2021 (R/C)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Sri T.R.Narendra Aged about 48 years, S/o Late Rangegowda, R/at Sapthagiri Nilaya, New Street, Talakad Village, T.Narasipura Taluk, Mysuru District-571122.

¶8

…Appellant

¶9

(By Sri B.S.Nagaraj, Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

The State of Karnataka Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Muzarai, Vidhana Soudha, Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Veedi, Bengaluru-560001.

¶12

The Rajya Dharmika Parishat, Hindu Religious Institution And Charitable Endowment Department, Represented by its Member Secretary and Commissioner, Chamarajapete, Bengaluru-560018.

¶13

:: 2 ::

¶14

Smt. Yashoda, Major in age, W/o Chikkarasaiah, R/at 3^rd Block, Talakad Village, T.Narasipura Taluk, Mysuru District-571122.

¶15

Smt. Bhagyamma Major in age W/o Suresha, R/at Hosa Hemmige Village, Nayakara Beedi, Ward No.1, Hemmige Post, T.Narasipura Taluk, Mysuru District-571122.

¶16

Sri T.Kantaraju, Major in age, S/o Bettadarasaiah, R/o Hosa Kukkuru Village, Talakad Hobli, T.Narasipura Taluk, Mysuru District-571122.

¶17

Sri Anilkumar K., Major in age S/o Krishnamurthy R., R/o Makanahalli, Ward No.3, Bannur Town, T.Narasipura Taluk, Mysuru District-571101.

¶18

Sri. T.Nanjundaswamy Major in age S/o Late M.S.Basavanna, R/at Halebeedhi, Talakad, T.Narasipura Taluk, Mysuru District-571122.

¶19

Sri T.C.Chikkaswamy, Major in age S/o T.C.Doddaveera, R/at 1^st Block, Talakad Village, T.Narasipura Taluk, Mysuru District-571122.

¶20

:: 3 ::

¶21

Sri. Basavaraju, Major in age S/o Nanjashetty, R/at Kaveripura, Talakad Hobli, T.Narasipura Taluk, Mysuru District-571122.

¶22

Sri Venkatesh, Major in age S/o Late Venkatagowda, R/at No.1838, Hosabeedhi, Ward No.8, Talakad Post, T.Narasipura Taluk, Mysuru District-571122.

¶23

…Respondents

¶24

(By Sri K.Dilip Kumar, HCGP for R1 & R2;

¶25

Sri M.R.Krishnamurthy, Advocate for R3 to R7 & R9; R8 & R10 – served. Unrepresented)

¶26

This MFA is filed under Section 63A of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Act 1997, to set aside the order dated 15.04.2021 passed by the respondent No.2, the Rajaya Dharmika Parishat, in Ref No. ADM-8CR/88/2020-21.

¶27

This MFA coming on for admission this day, the Court delivered the following:

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

In this appeal under section 63A of The Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997, (‘Act’ for short)

¶30

:: 4 ::

¶31

the appellant has questioned the correctness of the order dated 15.4.2021 passed by respondent no.2 – Rajya Dharmika Parishat.

¶32

The second respondent appointed

¶33

respondents 3 to 10 as the members of the Managing Committee of Sri. Vaidyanatheshwara Temple, Talkadu, T. Narisipura Taluk, Mysuru District by passing the impugned order. The appellants grievance is that the second respondent did not follow the procedure contemplated under Rule 22 of The Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Rules (‘Rules’ for short) and thus the appointment of respondents 3 to 10 were contrary to law. Another ground urged is that respondent no.7 - T.Nanjundaswamy is a drunkard and he is unfit to be appointed for the management Committee of the temple.

¶34

:: 5 ::

¶35

Learned counsel for the appellants Sri. B.S.

¶36

Nagaraj argued on lines with the grounds taken in the memorandum of appeal. He also submitted that the second respondent, instead of issuing notifications in accordance with Rule 22 of the Rules, published the notification of appointment of Committee members in the newspapers. This procedure is not prescribed under Rule 22 of the Rules. He also referred to the endorsements made on the letters by the Grama Panchayath Office and the Deputy Tahasildar, Talkadu stating that respondent no.2 had not sent any vacancy notification for being published in the notice board of their offices. Therefore it was his argument that appointment to the managing committee of the temple was not in accordance with law.

¶37

On the other hand, Government Pleader for respondent no.1 and 2 and Sri.

¶38

M.R.Krishanamurthy for respondents 3 to 7 and 9

¶39

:: 6 ::

¶40

argued that the appellant had no locus standi to prefer this appeal as he was not an applicant and that he was not eligible to be appointed to the managing committee of the temple because of pendency of criminal cases against him. They further submitted that before appointing respondents 3 to 10 to the management of the temple committee, respondents 1 and 2 obtained report about their antecedents and only when they were convinced that no criminal cases were pending against them, they were all appointed. The vacancy notification was published in the notice board of the temple and thus there was compliance of Rule 22. In this view appeal is to be dismissed.

¶41

The substantial question of law raised by the appellant is in regard to not following procedure contemplated in Rule 22.

¶42

:: 7 ::

¶43

The points urged by the counsel are considered. Rule 22 contemplates that the notification of the vacancies must be published by affixing it on the notice board of the institution i.e., the temple, notice board of the Gram Panchayat concerned notice board of the Taluk Panchayat concerned and in the notice board of the office of the prescribed authority. In the case on hand, it appears that the managing committees were to be appointed for 68 temples across the State of Karnataka and that Vaidyanatheshwara Temple, Talkadu was one such temple. Notifications were taken out in the newspapers, the paper cuttings are produced by the appellant himself. According to the appellant, in the letters written by him to the Gram Panchayat, Talkadu and to the Deputy Tahasildar, Talkadu to ascertain whether notification had been forwarded to them by the 2^nd respondent for publishing the notification of vacancy in the notice boards of their

¶44

:: 8 ::

¶45

offices, an endorsement is made by the Panchayat Development Officer and the Deputy Tahasildar that they had not published any such notification. But the appellant does not dispute notification being affixed in the notice board of the temple. Therefore there was due compliance of

¶46

requirement of Rule 22.

¶47

The appointing Authority, i.e., respondent no.2 obtained information about the antecedents of respondents 3 to 10 from the Deputy Commissioner. No adverse remarks were found against them. In this view the allegation by the appellant that respondent no. 7, Nanjundaswamy was unfit to be appointed, cannot be accepted. Though appellant has produced a photograph depicting the picture of smoking by a person said to be Nanjundaswamy, no adverse inference can be drawn against him in this appeal when the

¶48

:: 9 ::

¶49

report given by the Deputy Commissioner shows

¶50

that he is not involved in any criminal case.

¶51

As rightly argued by the Government

¶52

Pleader and the counsel for the respondents 3 to 7 and 9, the appellant has no locus standi to prefer this appeal, because he was not applicant for the post of management committee of the temple. Had he been an applicant, the ground raised by him could have been considered.

¶53

Therefore from the above discussion, I do not

¶54

find any merit in this appeal. Hence it is dismissed.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

Sri T R Narendra v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri T R Narendra 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramachandra D Vs Smt Padmavathi

Smt N Vedha Vs Sri v Nagesh

Sri Shivamurthappa P Vs Smt M Prathima

Sri. S. K. Mallikarjun Vs Mr. Rajanna

Sri D C Krishna Vs Smt Krishnaveni

The Union of India Vs Sri.Shivaram