Disposed

Sudhakara Gowda v. Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC22 May 2023WP/3961/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the Karnataka High Court disposed of the matter. The petitioners sought direction for taking over temple administration. The respondents opposed citing pending civil suits. The court directed the authorities to examine the representation within three months after notice to stakeholders.

What did the court decide?

Direction to consider the representation on the temple administration within three months of notice to stakeholders.

Sudhakara Gowda Vs Deputy Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 3961 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF MAY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 3961 OF 2023 (GM-R/C)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SUDHAKARA GOWDA, S/O BHOJA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NADU AJJOLI HOUSE, NADPAL VILLAGE, SEETHANADI POST, HEBRI TALUK, UDUPI DIST-576 112.

¶9

NAGARAJA

¶10

S/O RAMA HARIJANA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT BAILUMANE, NANDALA, NADPAL VILLAGE, HEBRI TALUK, UDUPI DIST-576 112.

¶11

Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

VARADARAJA,

¶13

S/O ANNAPPA KULAL, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,

¶14

MEL BANDIMATTA, SEETHANADI POST, HEBRI TALUK, UDUPI DIST-576 112.

¶15

DHEERAJ HEGDE S/O GANGHADHARA HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT BALLEBBI, SEETHANADI, NADPAL VILLAGE, SEETHANADI POST, HEBRI TALUK, UDUPI DIST-576112.

¶16

HARISH KULAL S/O SUNDARA KULAL,

¶17

¶18

WP No. 3961 of 2023

¶19

AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT BELLARE MANE, SEETHANDI, NADPAL VILLAGE, SEETHANADI POST, HEBRI TALUK, UDUPI DIST-576112.

¶20

B. VIJAYA KUMAR SHETTY S/O LATE BHOJA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT VISHWAS KRIPA, NADPAL VILLAGE, SEETHANADI POST, HEBRI TALUK, UDUPI DIST-576 112.

¶21

SUDHARSHAN HEGDE S/O VITTAL HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT AJJOLLI DARKAS, SEETHANADI, NADPAL VILLAGE, SEETHANADI POST, HEBRI TALUK, UDUPI DIST-576 112.

¶22

NAGESH S S/O LATE LINGAPPA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT HELEYINDA AACHE, NADPAL VILLAGE, SEETHANADI POST, HEBRI TALUK, UDUPI DIST-576 112.

¶23

MANJUNATHA KULAL S/O JAYARAMA KULAL, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/A MULKAADU BAILUMANE, NADPAL VILLAGE, SEETHANADI POST, HEBRI TALUK, UDUPI DIST-576 112

¶24

10. MAHESH NAIK

¶25

S/O NAGAPPA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT HURULLI KUMBRI, NADPAL VILLAGE, SEETHANADI POST, HEBRI TALUK, UDUPI DIST-576 112.

¶26

…PETITIONERS

¶27

(BY SMT. APOORVA., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NATARAJA BALLAL A.,ADVOCATE)

¶28

3 - WP No. 3961 of 2023

¶29

AND:

¶30

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UDUPI DISTRICT, RAJATADRI, MANIPAL, UDUPI -576 112.

¶31

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS, UDUPI DISTRICT, RAJATADRI, MANIPAL, UDUPI- 576 112.

¶32

NADAPALU GRAMA PANCHAYATH POST SOMESHWARA, HEBRI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-576 112. REP BY ITS P.D.O.

¶33

SMT. MANORAMA S. SHETTY AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, W/O DR. B. SHEKAR SHETTY, R/A ABHINETHRI HOUSE, KUNJAL HOUSE, BRAMHAVARA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT- 576 112.

¶34

…RESPONDENTS

¶35

(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL.,AGA FOR R1 AND R2)

¶36

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE COSNTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE R-1 AND D2 TO TAKE OVER THE ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE SHREE DURGAPARAMESHWARI DEVASTHANA, SEETHANADI.

¶37

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

¶38

¶39

WP No. 3961 of 2023

¶40

ORDER

¶41

The short grievance of the Petitioners is as to nonconsideration of subject Representation wherein they have sought for taking over the Administration & Management of temple in question.

¶42

Learned AGA appearing for the Respondents opposes the Petition contending that admittedly certain civil suits are pending in respect of the Administration & Management of the Temple in question; and that in the light of constitutional guarantee enacted in Part III generally, the Courts cannot interfere in matters of religion. She also adds that in the absence of demonstrable legal right, there is no duty on her clients to consider the Representation. Having resisted the Petition that way, she now fairly agrees to instruct her clients to look into the subject Representation in accordance with law and in a time bound manner. This is fair enough.

¶43

¶44

WP No. 3961 of 2023

¶45

In view of the above, Petition is disposed off. The time for consideration of the subject Representation is three months. All contentions are kept open and the consideration takes place only after notice to all the stake holders.

¶46

No costs.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

Bsv

Sudhakara Gowda v. Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhakara Gowda v. Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S N Putte Gowda Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Chikkaputtaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Dodda Lankaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Nitin Gupta Vs Union of India

Dr Shivamurthy Murugha Sharanaru Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Nandi Housing Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer