Allowed

Sri.Beeralingeshwara Temple v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Apr 2023WP/3872/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition to quash an order by the Appellate Authority that failed to consider the petitioner's application for impleadment, contrary to a prior direction. The Court allowed the petition, quashed the order, and remitted the matter back with notice to the authority to reconsider.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 25.03.2022 is quashed, and the matter is remitted to the Appellate Authority to pass appropriate orders after considering the impleadment applica

Sri.Beeralingeshwara Temple Vs the State of… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 3872 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO.3872 OF 2023 (GM-R/C)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI BEERALINGESHWARA TEMPLE P.B.ROAD, DAVANAGERE-577 002

¶9

REP. BY J.K. KOTRABASAPPA S/O. LATE J. KADAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO.655/2 HONDADA ROAD, DAVANGERE-577 001 THE SECRETARY SRI BEERESHWARA DEVASTANA JAGADA ABHIVRUDHI TRUST

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

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

¶12

(BY SRI KANTHARAJ H., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI RAVI H.K., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS (MUZARAI), VIKAS SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001.

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER HINDHU, RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU-560 018.

¶16

¶17

WP No. 3872 of 2023

¶18

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT DAVANAGERE-577 004.

¶19

THE TAHSILDAR DAVANGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 004.

¶20

B.P. LINGESH S/O. BASAVARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO.9/71 OCCUPATION:ARCHAKA SRI BEERALINGESHWARA TEMPLE P.B. ROAD, P.J. EXTENSION BESIDE BEERALINGESHWARA TEMPLE JAYADEVA CIRCLE, DAVANAGERE-577 002.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI B.V. KRISHNA, AGA FOR R.1 TO R.4; SRI HANUMANTHAPPA B. HARAVIGOWDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R.5)

¶23

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25d.03.2022 PASSED IN CASE NO.ADM-7/AP-8/20212022 PASSED BY R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-L BY ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the order dated 25.03.2022 passed by the second respondent. The petitioner is Sri.Beeralingeshwara Temple. The dispute appears

¶27

¶28

WP No. 3872 of 2023

¶29

to be between the fifth respondent and the Government with regard to the fifth respondent being appointed as Archak at the temple i.e., the petitioner. The Archak - fifth respondent was removed from his post which was called in question by him before this Court in W.P.No.9239/2021 c/w. W.P.Nos.9257/2020, 11842/2020. A Co-ordinate Bench in terms of the order dated 05.07.2021 disposed of the writ petition directing the fifth respondent to approach the Appellate Authority by filing an appeal.

¶30

In those proceedings, the present petitioner had preferred an application seeking his impleadment into the proceedings. In the light of the matter being remanded back to

¶31

the hands of the Appellate Authority, this Court passed the following:-

¶32

"8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off as having been rendered infructuous.

¶33

9. It is open to the applicant to seek for impleadment in the appeal to be filed and if such an application is made, the same shall be considered in accordance with law.

¶34

¶35

WP No. 3872 of 2023

¶36

In view of the disposal of the writ petitions, the pending applications do not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed off."

¶37

(emphasis added)

¶38

It was declared that the applicant - the present petitioner to seek impleadment in the appeal that was to be filed by the fifth respondent - petitioner therein and if such an application is made, the same should be considered and appropriate orders to be passed in accordance with law.

¶39

It transpires that the fifth respondent preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority in Appeal No.ADM 7/AP 8/2021-22. In the said proceeding, the present petitioner files an application seeking impleadment into the proceedings. This is objected to by the fifth respondent by filing statement of objections. The impugned order is passed on 25.03.2022 in favour of the fifth respondent without even noticing the fact that the impleading application was filed and an order on the impleading application had to be passed. As a matter of fact, the non-noticing of the impleading application filed by the petitioner is admitted. Therefore, there is violation of the order

¶40

¶41

WP No. 3872 of 2023

¶42

passed by this Court, wherein this Court permitted the petitioner herein to file an impleading application and further directed if such an application is filed, the same would be considered in accordance with law. The application was filed. Objections were also filed. What is ignored is the consideration of the application by the Appellate Authority which runs counter to the order passed by this Court. On this short ground that the pleading of the petitioner is not considered by the Appellate Authority, the petition deserves to succeed albeit in part.

¶43

The learned counsel for the fifth respondent submits

¶44

that the petitioner is a total stranger to the proceedings as the petitioner has no right to even question the appointment or otherwise of the fifth respondent as Archak of the temple. Be that as it may. In the light of the application filed and the objections also filed, by the fifth respondent, it was the duty of the respondent - Appellate Authority to pass appropriate orders as was directed by this Court. For it having not been done, the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the Appellate Authority.

¶45

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:-

¶46

¶47

WP No. 3872 of 2023

¶48

ORDER

¶49

i. The writ petition is allowed .

¶50

ii. The impugned order dated 25.03.2022 passed

¶51

by the second respondent stands quashed.

¶52

iii. The matter is remitted back to the hands of

¶53

the Appellate Authority i.e., the Commissioner, Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Department, Bengaluru, to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order.

¶54

iv. All consecutive action would depend upon the order passed by the Appellate Authority.

¶55

v. Since both the parties are present, they shall appear before the Appellate Authority on 20.04.2023, and the Appellate Authority shall regulate the procedure and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible.

¶56

vi. The Deputy Commissioner in the interregnum shall oversee that the funds kept in the temple by any means, is kept safe.

¶57

¶58

WP No. 3872 of 2023

¶59

vii. All contentions are left open.

¶60

Sd/JUDGE

¶61

VMB

Sri.Beeralingeshwara Temple v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Beeralingeshwara Temple 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 Sannamari D Vs Srei Equipment Finance Ltd.

Shri Mahadevaswamy N Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri P Jayaprakash Vs Vishwakarma Sahakara Bank Ltd.

M/S United Global Corporation Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Shivu a Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Samputa Narasimha Swamy Vs State Government of Karnataka