Bhasyamaswamy @ N.Venkatachar Vs Narayana Bhattar

THE COMMISSIONER HINDU CHARITABLE AND RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS OFFICE OF THE MUZRAI COMMISSIONER 2^ND FLOOR, SRI MALAI MAHADESHWARA VARTHA BHAVANA, ALOORU VENAKTARAMA ROAD, CHAMRAJEPET, BANGALORE-560018

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:36524 RP No. 722 of 2022

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT, BANGALORE MYSORE ROAD MANDYA-571401

¶21

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND ADMINISTRATOR SRI CHELUVANARAYANA SWAMY TEMPLE PANDAVAPURA SUB-DIVISION PANDAVAPURA, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA-571401

¶22

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF SRI CHELUVANARAYANA SWAMY TEMPLE MELOKOTE, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DIST.-571434

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. ABHINAV RAMANAND A., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶25

SRI. SRINIVASA KUMAR M. HCGP FOR R2 TO R6)

¶26

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN WP NO.55664/2014 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT AND GRANT REVIEW OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.12.2021 PASSED THEREIN AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO HEAR THE WRIT PETITION ON MERITS, IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE.

¶27

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

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:36524 RP No. 722 of 2022

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

This review petition is filed to review the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.55664/2017.

¶34

The facts put in a nutshell are that the petitioner in the review petition was appointed by the respondent No.2 on 'temporary basis' to officiate as an Archak at Yoganarasimhaswamy temple, Melukote, whenever there was a period of 'Ashucha' in the family of officiating priests. This was questioned by the respondent No.1 herein in W.P.No.55664/2017 primarily, on the ground that the respondent No.1 was entitled to nominate a substitute archak and obtain approval of the committee of the management of the Executive Officer. He contends that the petitioner therefore could not have been appointed to even officiate on temporary basis. This Court noticed the contentions and allowed the writ petition in terms of an order dated 03.12.2021.

¶35

The petitioner herein challenged the said order in Writ Appeal No.256/2022 which he withdrew with liberty to seek review of the order dated 03.12.2021 passed by a coordinate bench of this Court in the light of Section 77 of

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:36524 RP No. 722 of 2022

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 (henceforth referred to as 'Act, 1997).

¶40

The petitioner is therefore before this Court seeking to review the order dated 03.12.2021.

¶41

The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Deputy Commissioner is entitled to frame a scheme and also pass orders under Section 25-B of the Act, 1997 for the administration of the temple. He contends that the order appointing the petitioner was in exercise of the power vested in the respondent No.2 under Section 25-B of the Act, 1997, as five devotees of the temple had lodged a complaint against the respondent No.1 herein. He contends that this was not looked into by the Coordinate bench of this Court while disposing off W.P.No.55664/2017. He also contends that under Rule 15 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Rules, 2002 (henceforth referred to as 'Rules 2002' for short), the nomination of a substitute archak has to be approved by the executive officer and therefore, the respondent No.2 does not have the absolute right to appoint a person as a substitute.

¶42

5 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:36524 RP No. 722 of 2022

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 however submits that the petitioner does not belong to the family of the respondent No.1. He contends that the kainkaryas in the temple have to be performed by 08 families and the petitioner is not a member of the family. He contends that an Archak also bears responsibility to safekeep the ornaments including the ones in the sanctum sanctorum of the temple and therefore, infusing a 3^rd party into the temple may put the assets of the temple at risk. He contends that the appointment of the petitioner even on temporary basis was not approved by the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Institutions. He further contends that the division bench of this Court had permitted the petitioner to seek review of the order in the light of 77 of Act, 1997 and that no ground is made out under Section 77 of the Act, 1997 to interfere with the order.

¶46

I have considered the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

¶47

6 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:36524 RP No. 722 of 2022

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

The judgment of a Coordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.55664/2017 was questioned in W.A.No.256/2022. The writ appeal was withdrawn with liberty to seek review of the order passed by the learned single judge in the light of Section 77 of Act, 1997.

¶51

For the sake of convenience, Section 77 is extracted

¶52

below:

¶53

"77. Power to remove difficulties:-( 1) If any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of this Act in consequence of the transition to the said provisions from the provisions of the Acts in force immediately before the commencement of this Act, the State Government may, by notification make such provisions as appear to it to be necessary or expedient for removing the difficulty.

¶54

(2) If any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of this Act (otherwise than in commencement of this Act), the State Government may, by notification, make such provisions not inconsistent with the purposes of this Act, as appear to it to be necessary or expedient for removing the difficulty.

¶55

(3) The provisions made by any notification under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall have effect as if enacted in this Act and any such

¶56

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:36524 RP No. 722 of 2022

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

notification may be made so as to be retrospective to any date not earlier than the appointed day."

¶59

The reliance is placed on Section 77(2) of the Act,

¶60

1997 to buttress the contention that the appointment of petitioner was to tide over the difficulty caused during 'Ashoucha period' in carrying out the activities in the temple. However, reading of Section 77(2) of the Act, 1997 makes it more than evident that it does not deal with a situation where an Archak goes on leave for whatever reason. On the other hand, it is Rule 15(3) of the Rules, 2002 which is the relevant rule, which reads as follows:

¶61

" 15. Leave rules applicable to Archakas and other temple servants.-

¶62

(1) xxxx

¶63

(2) xxxx

¶64

(3) The Archakas and temple servants who are proceeding on leave should make their own arrangement to nominate a substitute in their place and obtain the approval of the Executive Officer or Chairman of the Committee of Management, as the case may be."

¶65

8 -

¶66

NC: 2025:KHC:36524 RP No. 722 of 2022

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

Therefore, when the concerned Archaks are vested with the responsibility to nominate the substitute, it is difficult to accept the claim of the petitioner that the State Government is entitled to make an order providing for a substitute.

¶69

The impugned order passed by this Court on 03.12.2021, therefore is just and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of this case and there is no error apparent on the face of record. The reliance placed by the learned senior counsel upon 25-B of the Act, 1997 was a ground available to him before the division bench, since that was not urged, the same cannot be pressed into service in this review petition.

¶70

13. Consequently, this review petition is dismissed.

¶71

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶72

HJ

¶73

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Bhasyamaswamy @ N.Venkatachar v. Narayana Bhattar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhasyamaswamy @ N.Venkatachar v. Narayana Bhattar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Thimmegowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Srinatha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Sampath Vs Assistant Registrar of Co. Operative Society

Dr G Manjunath Vs the Chairman and Deputy Commissioner

The Nurserymen Co. Operative Society Ltd., Vs Karnataka Information Commission

Masjid E Dargahi Vs the Karnataka State Board of Auqaf