Disposed

Sri Marikamba Vyavasthapaka Samithi R v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC31 Oct 2022WP/21399/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner sought mandamus for handover of Sri. Marikamba Temple management or appointment of a nodal officer alleging mismanagement. Court directed respondents to consider petitioners' grievances within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to consider petitioners' grievances inAnnexures-D and E and pass orders within six weeks of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Sri Marikamba Vyavasthapaka Samithi… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 21399 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 31^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 21399 OF 2022 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. MARIKAMBA VYAVASTHAPAKA SAMITHI {R}, A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT (REGN NO.DRSH/SOR/31/2022-23) JC ROAD SAGAR – 577 401. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI. S. L. MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O LINGAPPA R/ NO.51/1, SUBHASH NAGAR, SAGARA – 577 401. PH NO.94482 44094.

¶9

AND SECRETARY Digitally signed by SRI. V. GURU, PADMAVATHI B K AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, Location: HIGH COURT OF S/O VENKATESH REDDY, KARNATAKA R/A SRINAGAR I CROSS, SAGARA – 577 401, PH NO.94483 37659.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. RAMESH KUMAR R V., ADVOCATE)

¶12

¶13

WP No. 21399 of 2022

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M S BUILDING, V FLOOR, BANGALORE – 560 001. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, SIR M.V.ROAD, SAVALANGA ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA – 577 201.

¶17

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SAGARA TOWN, SAGARA – 577 401.

¶18

THE TAHSILDAR, SAGARA TALUK, SAGARA – 577 401.

¶19

SRI. K.N.NAGENDRA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O LATE NEELAPPA, R/A SRI RAMPUR BADAVANE, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, SAGAR – 577 401.

¶20

B GIRIDHAR RAO, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O LATE SUNDAR RAO, R/A BEHIND CHANDA WINES, B.H.ROAD, SAGAR – 577 401.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI.B.V.KRISHNA, AGA FOR R1 TO R6)

¶23

¶24

WP No. 21399 of 2022

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO HAND OVER THE MANAGEMENT OF SRI MARIKAMBA TEMPLE TO THE PETITIONER OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE APPOINT A NODAL OFFICER FOR THIS PURPOSE AND ETC.,

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following

¶29

prayer:

¶30

"Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ of like nature or direction directing the respondents to hand over the management of Sri.Marikamba temple to the petitioner or in the alternative appoint a Nodal Officer for this purpose and grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and necessary under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice."

¶31

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the respondent.

¶32

The petitioner seeks appointment of a Nodal Officer to the notified temple or appoint one of the petitioners to be

¶33

the part of the management, as they have alleged certain mismanagement and misappropriation by certain persons of the

¶34

¶35

WP No. 21399 of 2022

¶36

temple and its funds, who are claiming to be managing the temple.

¶37

Learned Additional Government Advocate would

¶38

submit that the temple is now a notified temple and for the ensuing eÁvÉæ that the petitioner has sought appropriate orders will be passed, considering the cases of the petitioners.

¶39

Placing the said submission of Sri.B.V.Krishna, the learned Additional Government Advocate, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the grievance of the petitioners as sought in Annexures-D and E series appended to the petition, all dated 13.06.2022 and so on in accordance with law, within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, if not earlier.

¶40

Ordered accordingly.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

NR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34

Sri Marikamba Vyavasthapaka Samithi R v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Marikamba Vyavasthapaka Samithi R 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

Sri D Venkatesh Murthy Vs the District Registrar of Societies

K. Rajesh Vs State of Karnataka

Parikshith@ Pareekshith @ Pachu @ Parikshith Bhandary Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Sikandar Babu Vs the Karnataka State Board of Auqaf

Banagopal H S Vs the Bangalore City Co. Oeprative Bank Ltd.

Mr. Srinivas L Vs Koteshwara Sahakari Bank Limited