Partly allowed

Sri Gangadharaiah v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Jul 2024WP/7260/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A temple archak challenged orders of the HR&CE Commissioner modifying an earlier remand decision regarding his appointment at Sri Kempammadevi Temple. The court upheld the original remand order but quashed the suo motu subsequent modification and consequent Tahsildar's order for violating natural justice, remitting the matter afresh to the Deputy Commissioner with status quo.

What did the court decide?

Annexure-J order of Commissioner and consequent Annexure-R16 order of Tahsildar set aside; matter remitted to Deputy Commissioner for fresh hearing; status quo ordered at temple.

Sri Gangadharaiah Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:26888 WP No. 7260 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 7260 OF 2023 (GM-R/C)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. GANGADHARAIAH S/O SHIVALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT DWARANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.-572 227.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RAMESH K.R., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶13

Digitally signed by Vandana S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

REPTD. BY ITS SECRETARY, HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU -560 001.

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT,

¶16

2^ND AND 3^RD FLOOR, MAHADESHWARA VARTHA BHAVAN, VENKATA RAO ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU-560 018.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:26888 WP No. 7260 of 2023

¶19

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU DISTRICT, TUMAKURU -572 101.

¶20

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TIPTUR SUB-DIVISION, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 224.

¶21

THE TAHSILDAR TURUVEKERE TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

¶22

SRI. KEMPAMMADEVI TEMPLE DWARANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI. TURUVEKERE TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT -572 227.

¶23

SRI. HEGDE KUMAR @ NANJE GOWDA S/O RANGAPPA, AGED MAJOR

¶24

SRI. CHANDRAPPA S/O RANGAPPA, AGED MAJOR

¶25

SRI. RANGE GOWDA S/O HUCHALAKKAIAH, AGED MAJOR

¶26

SRI. KRISHNA S/O ANCHE NANJAPPA, AGED MAJOR

¶27

SRI. HONNAPPA S/O KARIYAPPA,

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:26888 WP No. 7260 of 2023

¶30

AGED MAJOR

¶31

RESPONDENTS NO.7 TO 11 ARE R/AT DWARANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT -572 227.

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SRI. N.B. PATIL, AGA FOR R1 TO R6; SRI. L. SIDDESHA UMMATHUR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R7 TO R11)

¶34

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 16.02.2023 PASSED BY THE R-2 IN CASE NO.ADM7/AP3/2022-23 C/W ADM7/AP 4/2022-23 AT ANNEXURE-H AND THE ORDER DATED 24.03.2023 BEARING NO. E-1053092 HRICE-LAWO LAW3/11/2023-LAWEND-HRICE PASSED BY THE R-2 AT ANNEXURE-J AND THEREBY DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO CONTINUE THE PETITIONER AS ARCHAK OF SRI.KEMPAMMADEVI TEMPLE AT DWARANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK, TUMAKURU DIST AND ETC.

¶35

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

¶36

ORDER

¶37

In this petition, petitioner seeks following reliefs:

¶38

i. "Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order or direction, quashing the order dated 16.02.2023 passed by the 2^nd Respondent in case No.ADM7/AP 03/2022-23 C/W ADM7/AP 4/202223 at Annexure-H and the order dated 24.03.2023 bearing No.E-1053092 HRICE-LAW0 LAW3/11/2023-LAWEND-HRICE passed by the 2^nd Respondent at Annexure-J and thereby direct the respondent authorities to continue the petitioner

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:26888 WP No. 7260 of 2023

¶41

as Archak of Sri.Kempammadevi Temple at Dwaranahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Turuvekere Taluk, Tumakuru District.

¶42

ii. Grant such other relief/reliefs as this Hon'ble deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case”.

¶43

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶44

learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 6, learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 to 11 and perused the material on record.

¶45

In addition to reiterating the various

¶46

contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, having considered the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the impugned order at Annexure-H dated 16.02.2023, in order to contend that subsequent to the aforesaid impugned order passed by the second respondent/Commissioner directing remand of the matter to the third respondent/Deputy Commissioner, the second respondent/Commissioner proceeded to pass one more

¶47

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:26888 WP No. 7260 of 2023

¶48

order to subsequent impugned order at Annexure-J dated 24.03.2023, purporting to modify the earlier impugned order at Annexure-H dated 16.02.2023, which is without jurisdiction or authority of law, apart from being illegal and arbitrary, especially when there is no express provision which to enables/authorizes the second respondent to review/revisit his own order under the provision of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997¹ . It is also pointed out that though the second respondent/Commissioner had passed the impugned order at Annexure-H dated 16.02.2023, remitting the matter back to the third respondent/Deputy Commissioner and by issuing certain directions in this regard, the second respondent/Commissioner has passed subsequent impugned order at Annexure-J dated 24.3.2023 without providing any opportunity to the petitioner, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and on this ground also the impugned order at

¶49

1 for short the said Act of 1997

¶50

¶51

NC: 2024:KHC:26888 WP No. 7260 of 2023

¶52

Annexure-J dated 24.03.2023 as well as subsequent order at Annexure-R16 dated 29.03.2023 passed by the Tahsildar also deserves to be set aside.

¶53

Per contra, learned counsel for private

¶54

respondent Nos.7 to 11 invited my attention to Section 65 of the said Act of 1997, in order to contend that provision of CPC particularly under Order XLVII Rule 1 would be applicable to proceedings and orders under the said Act of 1997 and consequently, though there is no express provision for review in the said Act of 1997, the provisions of Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC would be applicable to the impugned order and second respondent Commissioner was fully justified in passing the impugned order at Annexure-J followed by the impugned order at Annexure-R16 passed by the Tahsildar, which do not warrant interference by this Court in the present petition.

¶55

By way of reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even assuming that Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC would be applicable to proceedings and

¶56

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:26888 WP No. 7260 of 2023

¶57

impugned order under the said Act of 1997, suo moto review which culminated with the impugned order was impermissible since respondent Nos.7 to 11 could not seek review of the order at Annexure-H and as such, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

¶58

A perusal of the impugned order at AnnexureH dated 16.02.2023 would indicate that the second respondent/Commissioner has remitted the matter back to the third respondent/Deputy Commissioner for reconsideration afresh by leaving open all contentions and by issuing certain directions as regards to performance of Pooja in the temple. Impugned order at Annexure-H passed by the second respondent/Commissioner remitting

¶59

the matter back to the third respondent/Commissioner by allowing the appeal filed by the respondent Nos.7 to 11 in AP No.ADM7/AP 3/2022-23 C/W ADM7/AP 4/2022-23 and by issuing certain directions regarding performance of Pooja in the subject temple-respondent No.6 cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity and same

¶60

¶61

NC: 2024:KHC:26888 WP No. 7260 of 2023

¶62

deserves to be confirmed by directing the third respondent/Deputy Commissioner to reconsider the matter

¶63

afresh in accordance with law within a stipulated time frame.

¶64

Insofar as the impugned order at Annexure-J dated 24.03.2023 and subsequent order at Annexure-R16 passed by the Tahsildar dated 29.03.2023, on the short ground that the same was passed suo moto by the respondent No.2/Commissioner without providing any opportunity to the petitioner, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and coupled with the fact that impugned order at Annexure-H dated 16.02.2023 merely remits the matter back to the third respondent/Deputy Commissioner, I am of the view that the impugned order at Annexure-J dated 24.03.2023 and consequent order at Annexure-R16 dated 29.03.2023, are illegal, arbitrary and same deserve to be set aside and the matter be remitted back to Deputy Commissioner for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law by keeping open all contentions.

¶65

¶66

NC: 2024:KHC:26888 WP No. 7260 of 2023

¶67

Hence, I pass following:

¶68

:ORDER:

¶69

i. The Writ Petition is hereby partly allowed.

¶70

ii. The present petition insofar as it relates to the challenge to Annexure-H dated 16.02.2023, passed by the second respondent is hereby dismissed.

¶71

iii. Impugned order at Annexure-J dated 24.03.2023 passed by the Second respondent is hereby set aside.

¶72

iv. So also, the consequent order at Annexure-R16 dated 29.03.2023 passed by the Tahsildar is also hereby set aside.

¶73

v. As directed by the Second respondent/Commissioner in the impugned order at Annexure-H dated 16.02.2023, the matter stands remitted back to the third respondent/Deputy Commissioner for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law, after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and respondent Nos.7 to 11.

¶74

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:26888 WP No. 7260 of 2023

¶75

vi. Petitioner and respondent Nos.7 to 11 shall appear before the third respondent/Deputy Commissioner on 22.07.2024, without waiting for further notice from the third respondent/Deputy Commissioner.

¶76

vii. Liberty is reserved in favour of the parties to file pleadings, documents, etc., before the third respondent/Deputy Commissioner, who shall consider the same and proceed further and conclude the proceedings within a period of two months from 22.07.2024.

¶77

viii. It is further directed that till completion of the proceedings by Deputy Commissioner as stated supra , the parties shall maintain status quo as on today in relation to the respondent No.6/Temple.

¶78

ix. It is made clear that all rival contentions between the parties are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.

¶79

Sd/JUDGE

¶80

ASN: List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Sri Gangadharaiah v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Gangadharaiah 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

Smt Rabbani Vs State by Principal

Sri Barkat Pasha Vs State of Karnataka

Ms Keerthana Vs the State of Karnataka

Fala Consumers Co. Operative Society Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Mohan K Nanaiah Vs Aditya Birla Finance Limited

Sundara Murthy Vs the District Registrar and Deputy Registrar