Allowed

Smt. Mathad Ratnamavva v. the Deputy Commissioner Ballari

Karnataka HC13 Sept 2024WP/105421/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to quash impugned orders rejecting permission for conducting religious ceremonies. The court held the rejection to be arbitrary due to lack of notice, allowed the petition, and directed respondents to provide police protection.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned orders permitting petitioners to conduct the religious ceremonies and directing respondents to provide necessary police protection.

Smt. Mathad Ratnamavva Vs the Deputy… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:13146 WP No. 105421 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH WRIT PETITION NO. 105421 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SMT. MATHAD RATNAMAVVA, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, PRESIDENT, SRI. YERRITARA MUTT, KOLAGALLU, KOLAGALLU-583102, TQ: AND DIST: BALLARI.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BALLARI, STATION ROAD, BSNL COLONY, COWL BAZAAR, BALLARI-583101.

¶11

THE POLICE INSPECTOR, RURAL POLICE STATION, BALLARI, RAILWAY STATION APPROACH RD, NEAR TALUK OFFICE, BSNL COLONY, COWL BAZAAR, BALLARI-583101.

¶12

SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARANTAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶13

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BALLARI, 5W2H+6MC, KHB COLONY, SIDIGINAMOLA, BALLARI-583103.

¶14

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA)

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ORDER BEARING NO. SAM/KAM/MAG/KASU/15/2024-25 DATED 02.09.2024 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ENDORSEMENT DATED 25.08.2024 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2, VIDE ANNEXURE-B. CONSEQUENTLY, PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO CONDUCT THE 110^TH PUNYARADHANE OF SRI. SADGURU YERITATA AND 11^TH PUNYARADHANE OF SRI. YERRISWAMY FROM 14.09.2024 TO 24.09.2024, BY DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO PROVIDE

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13146 WP No. 105421 of 2024

¶18

NECESSARY POLICE PROTECTION FOR SMOOTH FUNCTIONING OF THE SAID PUNYARADHANE AND ETC.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS , THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶23

The present petition is filed praying this Court to issue writ of certiorari by quashing the order bearing No.Sam/Kam/MAG/KaSu/15/2024-25 dated 02.09.2024 passed by the respondent No.1 vide Annexure-A and endorsement dated 25.08.2024 issued by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure-B and consequently, permit the petitioner to conduct 110th Punyaradhane of Sri Sadguru Yeritata and 11th Punyaradhane of Sri Yerriswamy from 14.09.2024 to 24.09.2024 by directing the respondents to provide necessary police protection for smooth functioning of the said Punyaradhane.

¶24

The counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that in RFA an order was passed on I.A.No.1/2024 vide order

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13146 WP No. 105421 of 2024

¶26

dated 19.02.2024 and the said order shall not confer any right on the appellants in interfering with the management and the administration of the property belonging to the temple and also contend that when the permission is sought and the same was rejected and the said rejection is perverse, capricious and respondents have failed to note that the petitioners are conducting the Punyaradhane and the same was from several decades without any interruption and also contend that till today no untoward incident has taken place in the Punyaradhane. However, precautionary measures, the petitioner had sought permission seeking necessary police protection for conducting the same.

¶27

The order passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 is nothing but preventing the religious practice and respondent No.1 has neither issued any notice to the petitioner nor heard the petitioner before passing the impugned order, so also in issuing the endorsement by the respondent No.2.

¶28

The counsel appearing for the respondents would submits that there are clashes between the two groups of the same and hence, six cases are registered in this connection regarding performing of religious activities and also an

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13146 WP No. 105421 of 2024

¶30

intimation is received that in view of six cases between the groups, there is a chances of untoward incident and keeping the same, the permission was not given and the same is set out in Annexure-A and Annexure-B is also only with an intention to maintain the law and order. The endorsement was issued.

¶31

Having heard the petitioner’s counsel and also the counsel appearing to the respondents and also taking into note of the pleadings and particularly it is pleaded that this Punyaradhane was conducted regularly and this is 110th Punyaradhane of Sri Sadguru Yeritala and 11th Punyaradhane of Sri Yerriswamy and in respect of this Punyaradhane, there is no any clashes and also this Court in RFA No.100582/2022 passed an order on I.A.No.1/2024 permitting the completion of the construction of Mahadwara and Rajagopura and when the Punyaradhane was held continuously, no such untoward incident was also taken place earlier and when such being the case, the rejection of permission is also only in the interest of general public to maintain the law and order and it is the responsibility of the petitioner to conduct the Punyaradhane in a peaceful manner without causing any trouble to the general

¶32

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13146 WP No. 105421 of 2024

¶33

public and also to maintain the peace while conducting the Punyaradhane that too for a period of ten days from 14.09.2024 to 24.09.2024 and continuing the said

¶34

Punyaradhane also cannot be curtailed and the same also amounts to feelings of the deities who are having belief in conducting the same and continuation of the said for Punyaradhane should not be affected by rejecting the permission and also by issuing such an endorsement. Hence, it is appropriate to quash the Annexures-A and B and consequently, permitted the petitioners to conduct the 110th Punyaradhane of Sri Sadguru Yeritata and Sri Yerriswamy from 14.09.2024 in a peaceful manner and the petitioner is also shall not indulge in any such acts and untoward incident disturbing situation and if necessary, provide necessary police protection for smooth functioning of the said Punyaradane. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶35

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶36

SSP CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

Smt. Mathad Ratnamavva v. the Deputy Commissioner Ballari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Mathad Ratnamavva v. the Deputy Commissioner Ballari

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

Smt.Radha W/O Sudhakar Gaonkar Vs Smt.Premabai W/O Mukund Nayak

Kiran S/O Basanagouda Patil Vs the State Election Commission

Tousiq S/O Mohd.Gouse Bassapuri Vs the Investigating Officer

Shivanand S/O Mallappa Mugalihal Vs Avadhut S/O Haribhau Khanolkar

Arif Rajisab Basti Vs the Chief Executive Officer

M/S. Nikitha Minerals Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs National Mineral Development Corporation