Allowed

Paramarth Niketan Trust Shri Hari Mandir 734 v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Dec 2023WP/107267/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged a notification inviting applications for a managing committee at its temple, claiming hereditary trustee status. The Court set aside the notification regarding the petitioner and directed authorities to decide on the management committee only after the pending hereditary trust application is resolved.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notification set aside insofar as it relates to the petitioner; liberty given to form committee after petitioner's pending application is disposed of.

Paramarth Niketan Trust Shri Hari Mandir 734 Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

- 1 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14662 WP No. 107267 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶3

DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 107267 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

PARAMARTH NIKETAN TRUST SHRI HARI MANDIR, 734, ANGOL ROAD, BELAGAVI, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, SHRI CHAITANYA KAMALAKAR MALLAPUR, A/A: 61 YEARS, PRESIDENT.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. A.P. HEGDE JANMANE & SRI. VIJAY M. MALALI, ADVOCATES)

¶12

AND:

¶13

GIRIJA A BYAHATTI

¶14

Digitally signed by GIRIJA A BYAHATTI

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-01.

¶16

SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-01.

¶17

RAJYA DHARMIKA PARISHAT BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER-SECRETARY, COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS & CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS, ALUR VENKATRAO ROAD, CHAMARAJA PETE, BANGALORE-18.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14662 WP No. 107267 of 2023

¶20

COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS & CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS, ALUR VENKATRAO ROAD, CHAMARAJA PETE, BANGALORE-18.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. GANGADHAR J.M., AAG FOR SRI. PRAVEEN UPPAR, AGA)

¶23

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND MANDAMUS, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION BEARING NO. ADM-8/CR/25/2019-20 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 DATED 06-11-2023 (ANNEXURE-E) INVITING APPLICATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF MANAGING COMMITTEE TO THE PETITIONER TRUST; TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS BY WAY OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS NOT TO PROCEED WITH APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT TILL THE CLAIM OF PETITIONER TEMPLE THAT IT IS EXCLUSIVELY MANAGED BY ITS PRESIDENT WHO IS HEREDITARY TRUSTEE IS FINALLY DECIDED BY RAJYA DHARMIK PARISHAT/NYAYADHIKARANA, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶25

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

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14662 WP No. 107267 of 2023

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The claim of the petitioner is that, it is a Hereditary Trust managing the affairs of Hari Mandir at Angol, Belagavi Taluk and that it has made an application before the Rajya Dharmika Parishat, Bengaluru, for recognizing their right as Hereditary Trustee to manage the said Hari Mandir. In the meanwhile, respondent No.3 has issued the impugned notification dated 06.11.2023 bearing No.ADM-8/CR/25/2019-20 (Annexure-E to the writ petition), calling upon application from interested persons to constitute Managing Committee to manage the affairs of the said Hari Mandir. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶29

Learned AAG, upon instructions, submits that presently the affairs of the Hari Mandir are managed by the petitioner Trust and their claim that they are Hereditary Trustees and should be given a right to manage the said Hari Mandir, is pending before Rajya Dharmika Parishat. He also submits that, Karnataka Hindu Religious

¶30

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14662 WP No. 107267 of 2023

¶31

Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997, has been struck down as unconstitutional by this Court, however, stay has been granted on the said order by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and as of now, the provisions of the Act are operating.

¶32

Admittedly, as of today, petitioner is managing the affairs of the said Hari Mandir and it has made an application before respondent No.3 - Rajya Dharmika Parishat, to declare them as Hereditary Trustees, who are entitled to manage the affairs of the said Hari Mandir, as per the provisions of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997.

¶33

Under the circumstances, it would be appropriate to direct the authorities concerned to take a decision about forming a Committee for managing the affairs of the said Hari Mandir, after a decision is given on the application filed by the petitioner, which is pending before respondent No.3 - Rajya Dharmika Parishat.

¶34

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14662 WP No. 107267 of 2023

¶35

Hence the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

i. Impugned notification bearing No.ADM8/CR/25/2019-20 issued by respondent No.3 dated 06.11.2023, vide Annexure-E to the writ petition, insofar as it relates to the petitioner, is hereby set aside.

¶38

ii. Respondents are given liberty to take a decision of constituting a Managing Committee in accordance with law, only after the application filed by the petitioner, pending before respondent No.3 is disposed of.

¶39

iii. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

¶42

gab ct-mck

Paramarth Niketan Trust Shri Hari Mandir 734 v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paramarth Niketan Trust Shri Hari Mandir 734 v. 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

Shankrayya S/O Maharudrayya Hiremath Vs the State of Karnataka

Ganesh S/O Devendrappa Ronad Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Shri. Sudhir Guranna Halgekar Vs the Chief Executive Officer

Kumari Susmita D/O Basavaraj Ankali Vs Smt. Sugandha W/O Siddappa Shiragavi

Banashankari Agro Industries Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Veerabhadra Dev of Godachi Vs the State of Karnataka