Allowed

Veda Vyasa Bhat v. the Assistant Commissioner for Hindu Religious

Karnataka HC13 Dec 2024WP/33861/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a notification inviting applications for appointment of temple trustees. Since the applicability of the endowment Act to the temple was pending before the Rajya Dharmika Parishath and the administrator's appointment was under challenge before the High Court, the court quashed the notification.

What did the court decide?

Notification dated 29.11.2024 issued by respondent No.1 (Annexure-E) quashed.

Veda Vyasa Bhat Vs the Assistant Commissioner for… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:53277 WP No. 33861 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 33861 OF 2024 (GM-R/C)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

VEDA VYASA BHAT, AGE 70 YEARS, S/O VASUDEV BHAT, MADHYAGEHA, NAGRBHAVI, KARKALA, UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 104.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. M.E. NAGESH, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS, RAJATHADRI, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 101.

¶12

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS, RAJATHADRI, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 101.

¶15

THE ADMINISTRATOR, SRI ANANTHAPADMANABHA TEMPLE, ANANTHASHAYANA, KARKALA, UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 104.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:53277 WP No. 33861 of 2024

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 THE AC FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS, UDUPI IN NO. E.COMP.NO. 14046 FILE NO. HRICEUADMOTRS/42/2024-ADMN DATED 29.11.2024 AS PER ANNX-E AND ETC.,

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner challenges the notification dated 29.11.2024 issued by respondent No.1 inviting application for appointment to the post of trustees to Sri. Ananthapadmanabha Temple, Ananthashayana.

¶25

The petitioner claims that the appointment of trustees to the temple is governed by the custom and usage of nominating a local Brahmin as trustee to the temple in question. Given the facts, an administrator was appointed to the temple to administer the affairs of the temple. The appointment of administrator is the subject matter before this Court.

¶26

The petitioner has filed W.P.No.65594/2016 before this Court challenging the appointment of administrator to the temple, which is pending consideration and the petitioner has also filed an application under Section 20-A (1) (d) of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 (for short, 'the Act') to the Rajya Dharmika Parishath to exclude the applicability of the Act to the temple in question. During the

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:53277 WP No. 33861 of 2024

¶29

pendency of this petition, the impugned notification has been issued.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the respondent-State.

¶31

The issue as to the applicability of the Act to the temple in question is pending consideration before the Rajya Dharmika Parishath and the appointment of the administrator is also pending consideration before this Court. Therefore, when the dispute is pending before the competent authority, the notification issued by respondent No.1 is not legally sustainable.

¶32

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

i. Writ petition is allowed.

¶35

ii. The impugned notification dated 29.11.2024 issued by respondent No.1 at Annexure-E is hereby quashed.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶38

RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62; CT: BHK

Veda Vyasa Bhat v. the Assistant Commissioner for Hindu Religious

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veda Vyasa Bhat v. the Assistant Commissioner for Hindu Religious

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 Veerabhadreshwara Filling Centre Vs the Nayara Energy Ltd.

M/S. Ssa Constructions Vs Andra Bank

Mr. C. Ramalinga Vs the Authorized Officer/General Manager

Smt Saritha Gouthi Vs the State of Karnataka

Koragakallu Sri Swamy Koragajja Seva Trust (Reg) Vs the District Commissioner

Smt Nagarathna N @ Rathnapunam Vs National Highway Authority of India