Disposed

Sri G Gokul v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC3 Nov 2022WP/7076/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India filed by a devotee of the Sri Anjaneyaswamy temple seeking directions to consider his grievances. The Court observed that the appointment process involves the Rajyadarik Parishath and directed that petitioner's grievances be considered during such appointment. The petition was disposed of without pronouncing on merits

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's grievance shall be considered when an Archak is appointed, either by respondents or via the Rajyadarik Parishath.

Sri G Gokul Vs the Commissioner — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 7076 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 7076 OF 2022 (GM-R/C)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI G GOKUL S/O C.S.GOPAL BHATTARU AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O KYAMENAHALLI VILLAGE, HOLAVANAHALLI HOBLI, KORATAGERE TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 101.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. M.R. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. H.N. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER

¶14

HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, 4TH FLOOR, SRI MINTO ANJANEYA BHAVANA, ALURU VENKATARAO ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BENGLAURU-560 018.

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU DISTRICT, TUMAKURU-572 101

¶16

¶17

WP No. 7076 of 2022

¶18

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MADHUGIRI SUB DIVISION, MADHUGIRI TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 132

¶19

THE TAHSILDAR AND MUZRAI OFFICER KORATAGERE TALUK, KORATAGERE, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 101

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP)

¶22

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE GRIEVANCE ADDRESSED BY THE PETITIONER AS PER ANNX-C TO C3 AND OTHER DEVOTEES WHILE TAKING DECISION ON THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE SENIOR AGAMA PANDIT AS PER ANNX-B AND B1 AND DIRECT TO TAKEN NOTE OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE GOVERNMENT HIS HIGHNESS THE MAHARAJA OF MYSORE DTD. 05.12.1903 AS PER ANNX-A.

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

WP No. 7076 of 2022

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following

¶28

prayer:

¶29

"a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents to consider the grievances addressed by the petitioner as per Annexures-C to C3 and other devotees while taking decision on the report submitted by the Senior Agama Pandit as per Annexures-B & B1 and direct to taken note of the proceedings of the Government his Highness the Maharaja of Mysore dated 05-12-1903 as per AnnexureA;

¶30

b) Pass any appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deem it fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and allow this Writ Petition with costs, in the ends of justice and equity."

¶31

2. Heard Sri. M.R. Rajagopal, learned Senior counsel,

¶32

appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned HCGP appearing for the respondents and have perused the material on record.

¶33

In the light of the prayer so sought by the petitioner supra , the issue lies in a narrow compass.

¶34

The petitioner is one of the devotees of Sri Anjaneyaswamy temple, Kyamenahalli Village, Holavanahalli Hobli, Koratagere Taluk. The grievance of the petitioner is that

¶35

¶36

WP No. 7076 of 2022

¶37

the appointment of the Archak should be made after considering the grievance as vented out by the petitioner and the like all dated 10.01.2021 submitted to the respondents.

¶38

Learned HCGP would submit that an Archak would be appointed only after the application is placed before the Rajyadarik Parishath a decision would be then taken by the competent authority appointing the Archak. In the event of appointing an Archak, the grievance of the petitioner would also be placed before the said Parishath and a decision would be taken in accordance with law. The submission is placed on record.

¶39

Therefore, if and when an appointment is sought to be made of an Archak to Anjaneyaswamy temple, Kyamenahalli Village, Holavanahalli Hobli, Koratagere Taluk, the grievance of the petitioner shall also be considered either by the respondents or by placing it before the Rajyadarik Parishath.

¶40

With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed.

¶41

¶42

WP No. 7076 of 2022

¶43

It is made clear that this Court has not pronounced upon

¶44

the merit of the grievances in the representations.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51

Sri G Gokul v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri G Gokul v. the Commissioner

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

Mr Joswin Lobo Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Srinivas D Shiriyannavar Vs Smt K B Mamatha

Sri K S Linge Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sunil Kini Kulai Vs District Magistrate

Mr. Walter Ossy Pinto Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Engineering Works Vs the Deputy Commissioner