Dismissed

Kalyavi Bindu Madhavachar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Oct 2023WP/19192/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged an order dismissing his appeal to denotify the Sri Raghavendra Swamigala Brindavana from the list of notified religious institutions. The Court examined the definitions under the 1997 Act and found the Brindavana to be a religious institution under Section 2(17), not a Mutt, and consequently dismissed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filed for quashing the order of the Rajya Dharmika Parishath was dismissed.

Kalyavi Bindu Madhavachar Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:35920 WP No. 19192 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 19192 OF 2015 (GM-R/C)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

KALYAVI BINDU MADHAVACHAR S/O LATE K.SHAMACHAR, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, ARCHAKA, BHUDIKOTE, SRI RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY MUTT, BHUDIKOTE VILLAGE, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. M.N. SATHYA RAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-506 001.

¶12

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOLAR DISTIRCT, KOLAR-563100.

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THAHASILDAR, BANGARPET TALUK, BANGARPET, KOLAR DISTRICT-563114.

¶15

THE RAJYA DHRMIKA PARISHATH 2^ND FLOOR, ALOOR VENKATA RAO ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE-560018.

¶16

AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 07.07.2022.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS

¶20

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:35920 WP No. 19192 of 2015

¶21

IN R.D.P/TRI/82/2012-13 PASSED BY THE RAJYA DHARMIKA PARISHATH, BANGALORE DATED 07.03.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND QUASH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE RAJYA DHARMIKA PARISHATH, BANGALORE.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order passed by the Rajya Dharmika Parishath, Bengaluru dated 07.03.2015 in R.D.P./TRI/82/201213, by which, a petition under Section 20A(2)(iv) of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 (henceforth referred to as 'Act of 1997') praying to delete Sri. Raghavendra Swamigala Brindavana, Budikote Village, Bangarpet Taluk, Kolar District, from the list of notified institutions, was rejected.

¶25

The petitioner claims that Sri. Raghavendra Swamigala Brindavana was established at Budikote village, Bangarpet Taluk, in the year 1681 by the Kalyavi family and that the petitioner is the present Archak of the Mutt. The petitioner contends that Sri. Raghavendra Swamigala Brindavana was notified as a religious institution under the erstwhile Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:35920 WP No. 19192 of 2015

¶27

Endowments Act, 1927 (henceforth referred to as 'Act of 1927') and is presently under the control of the department of Muzrai. The petitioner filed a representation before the Commissioner of Religious and Charitable Endowments to denotify Sri. Raghavendra Swamigala Brindavana from the list of notified institution as a Mutt is excluded from the provisions of the Act of 1997. The said application being rejected, the petitioner was prompted to file an appeal before the Rajya Dharmika Parishat, Bengaluru in appeal No.RDP/TRI/82/2012-13 to denotify Sri. Raghavendra Swamigala Brindavana from the list of notified institution. He contended that Budikote village is a remote area and only about 10-15 devotees converged at Sri. Raghavendra Swamigala Brindavana and offer poojas and while on the rest of the other days, there were hardly any visitors. He contended that at the time of Aradhana of Sri. Raghavendraswamy, about 100-200 gathered on all the three days. It was also contended that the respondents without visiting the Mutt or knowing the facts, had filed objections contending that 1000 devotees would visit Sri. Raghavendra Swamigala Brindavana and therefore, Sri. Raghavendra Swamigala Brindavana cannot be excluded from the list of notified institutions.

¶28

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:35920 WP No. 19192 of 2015

¶29

The Rajya Dharmika Parishat after considering the fact that there was no Mutt attached to Sri. Raghavendra Swamigala Brindavana held that the provisions of the Act of 1997 is applicable to a Brindavana as it is a religious institution as defined under the Act of 1997 and consequently, it dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.

¶30

Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the institution is not a Brindavana but is a Mutt where few devotees would congregate and would perform poojas at the Brindavana and therefore, it is a place of learning and hence, is a Mutt which is outside the scope of the provision of the Act of 1997. He further contended that in similar circumstances, a Brindavana of Sri. Raghavendara Swamy established at Honnali is treated as "Mutt" by the Department of Hindu Religious and Endowment and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be treated alike.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2023:KHC:35920 WP No. 19192 of 2015

¶34

Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate invited the attention of the Court to the definition of the "religious institution" and contended that the Brindavana is also a religious institution, which is included under Section 2(17) of the Act of 1997. He also pointed out that "Math" is defined differently as a religious institution presided over by a person whose principal duty is to engage himself in preaching and propagation of religion, teachings and philosophy of the denomination, sect or sampradaya to which the Math belongs. He contends that admittedly there are no Matadhipathis and no teaching is propagated at Sri. Raghavendra Swamigala Brindavana and hence, it cannot partake the character of the Mutt. He also contends that the except a small Brindavana, there is no other structure which is attached to it and therefore, it cannot be construed as a Mutt and therefore, the institution cannot be denotified on the mere say of the petitioner.

¶35

I have considered the submissions made by the

¶36

learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2023:KHC:35920 WP No. 19192 of 2015

¶39

The fact that Sri. Raghavendra Swamigala Brindavana at Budikote Village, Bangarpet Taluk, Kolar District was notified as a religious institution under the Act of 1927 and later under the Act of 1997 is not in dispute. The erstwhile State Government had provided a cash grant of Rs.21/- for the maintenance of Sri. Raghavendra Swamigala Brindavana and 13 annas was fixed as tasdik for Archaks in the Brindavana. The document produced by the petitioner himself indicated that the Endowment Commissioner had fixed tasdik at a sum of Rs.539/- per year under the provisions of the Inam Abolition Act, 1977. Therefore, it is more than evident that for nearly 100 years, the management of Sri. Raghavendra Swamigala Brindavana is done by the Government. The reports of the Deputy Commissioner and Tahsildar also indicate that 1000 people participate in the religious activities conducted at Sri. Raghavendra Swamigala Brindavana and therefore, the public have an interest in the administration of Sri. Raghavendra Swamigala Brindavana. Consequently, the claim of the petitioner to denotify Sri. Raghavendra Swamigala Brindavana from the list of institution and hand over the management of Sri. Raghavendra Swamigala Brindavana to the petitioner's

¶40

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:35920 WP No. 19192 of 2015

¶41

family is without any basis. Even otherwise, a perusal of Section 2(17) of the Act of 1997 indicates that Brindavana is also a religious institution covered under the provisions of Act of 1997, while Mutt is excluded under the provisions of the Act of 1997.

¶42

A "Math" is defined under Section 2(19A) of the Act

¶43

of 1997 which reads as follows:-

¶44

"(19A) "Math" means a religious institution presided over by a person whose principal duty is to engage himself, in teaching and propagation of religion, teachings and philosophy of the denomination, sect or sampradaya to which the Math belongs and in imparting religious instruction and training and rendering spiritual service who exercises or claims to exercise spiritual headship over a body of disciples and includes any place or places of religious worship, instruction or training which are pertinent to the institution including religious institutions attached either religiously or administratively to the Maths."

¶45

A perusal of the definition of the Mutt would

¶46

indicate that Mutt is a place of learning which is headed by the person whose duty is to propagate the religion, teachings and

¶47

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:35920 WP No. 19192 of 2015

¶48

philosophy of the denomination, sect or sampradaya to which the Mutt belongs.

¶49

In the case on hand, there are no religious heads who are presiding over the Mutt and there is no spiritual propagation of the faith to which the Mutt belongs. The photographs placed on record show that what is available is only a small Brindavana of Sri. Raghavendra Swami, where a few people congregate. Hence, it cannot be construed as a "Mutt" and thus the request of the petitioner on the ground that Sri. Raghavendra Swamigala Brindavana is attached to Mutt, is without any basis. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the Rajya Dharmika Parishat, Bengaluru dated 07.03.2015 cannot be termed to be arbitrary or unreasonable.

¶50

In that view of the matter, this petition lacks merit and is dismissed .

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

PMR

¶53

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34

Kalyavi Bindu Madhavachar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalyavi Bindu Madhavachar 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

Sumanth K Korishettar Vs State by

Ravi Vs C R Rangaswamy

Sri.Siddaramu Vs the Chief Engineer

Sri. Narendra Kumar J N Vs State Bank of India

Ramachandra Nayak Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Thejaswikumar Vs the Deputy General Manager