K R Satish Vs the State of Karnataka

K R SATISH SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR SRI. VINEETH S, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS S/O LATE K R SATISH NO.4804, 2ND BLOCK, 9TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS, BSK I STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 050.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. ABHINAV RAMANAND A, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by AMBIKA H B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF MUZRAI M.S.BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER, KARNATAKA HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS, 4^TH FLOOR, SRI MALAIMAHADESHWARA VARTHA BHAVANA ALUR VENKAT RAO ROAD,

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:39504-DB WA No. 1610 of 2024

HC-KAR

CHAMRAJPET,

BENGALURU 560 004.

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SRI. LAKSHMINARASIMHASWAMY TEMPLE, BALEPET, BANGALORE - 560 053.

¶23

SMT. LALITHA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS W/O. LATE.K.S.VARADACHAR

¶24

SMT. B.V. ARUNA DEVI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, W/O. SRI. K.S. KRISHNANARAYANA DIKSHIT

¶25

SMT. B.V. ARCHANA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, W/O. SRI. SANTOSH,

¶26

RESPONDENTS NOS. 4 TO 6 AT NO.201, SRINIVASA TEMPLE STREET, BALEPETE, BENGALURU 560 053.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 SRI. SURESH.S.LOKRE, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI. SHRAVAN.S.LOKRE, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4)

¶29

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE FINAL ORDER DATED 23/09/2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.56812/2015 AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANT AND ETC.

¶30

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:39504-DB WA No. 1610 of 2024

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶34

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶35

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶36

The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 23.09.2024 [' impugned order '] passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No.56812/2015 (GM-R/C).

¶37

The appellant had preferred the said petition impugning an order dated 08.10.2015 passed by respondent No.2 [Additional Deputy Commissioner] appointing respondent No.4 as Pradhana Archaka of Sri Lakshminarasimhaswamy Temple, Balepete Bengaluru. During the course of the writ petition, the original petitioner [Sri K.R. Satish] expired and the writ petition was pursued by his son – the appellant in the present appeal. The learned Single Judge, after considering the nature of the disputes, held that the dispute fell within the scope of clause (iii) of subsection (6) of Section 25-B of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments, Act, 1997 [hereafter referred to as ' the 1997 Act '] and therefore, in terms of Section 25-

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:39504-DB WA No. 1610 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

B(6) of the Act, 1997, the disputes were required to be adjudicated by the Deputy Commissioner. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge has remanded the matter to the respondent No.2 [Deputy Commissioner], to take a decision as to the rights of the rival parties after affording them an opportunity to be heard.

¶41

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has assailed the impugned order, essentially on three fronts.

¶42

3.1. First, he submits that the Deputy Commissioner is not the appropriate Authority to render any decision on the subject dispute. He submits that in terms of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Rules, 2002, [hereafter ' the Rules '] the Commissioner is the appropriate Authority, as the Temple in question is classified as a class 'A' Temple.

¶43

3.2. Second, he submits the power of the Deputy Commissioner to decide the questions as referred to in Sub-section (6) of Section 25-B of the 1997 Act is to be read in conjunction of Sub-section (1) Section 25-B of the 1997 Act, which pertains to framing a scheme. In other words, he contends that the questions referred to under

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:39504-DB WA No. 1610 of 2024

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Section 25-B(6) of the 1997 Act can be adjudicated by the Deputy Commissioner only if a scheme is framed under Section 25-B(1) of the 1997 Act and the said questions arise in connection with the implementation of the said scheme.

¶47

3.3. Third, he submits that the learned Single Judge has not set aside the order dated 08.10.2015 which was impugned in the writ petition. He submits that remanding the dispute to respondent No.2 without setting aside the order that was the subject matter of challenge, would be a futile exercise.

¶48

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent fairly concedes that since the matter has been placed before respondent No.2 for a decision afresh, the order dated 08.10.2025 may be set aside. He, however, submits that the interim directions issued by the learned Single Judge, declining to interfere with a direction issued in the order dated 8.10.2015, permitting the respondent No.4 to continue performing pooja till the decision is taken by respondent No.2, ought not to be interfered with.

¶49

Before proceeding to address the questions, it is relevant to refer to Section 25(B) of the 1997 Act. The same is set out below:

¶50

6 -

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:39504-DB WA No. 1610 of 2024

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

“25-B. Power of the Deputy Commissioner to settle scheme for the administration of Charitable endowments and to decide certain other disputes .-(1) When the Deputy Commissioner has reason to believe that in the interest of the proper administration of Charitable endowments or a endowment attached to any notified institution or declared institution, a scheme shall be settled for such endowment or when not less than five persons having interest make an application in writing stating that in the interest of the proper administration of the endowment, a scheme shall be settled for it, the Deputy Commissioner shall on consultation with the Trustee or the Committee of Management or the persons having interest and if, after such consultation he is satisfied that is it necessary or desirable to do so, he shall by order, settle a scheme of administration such charitable endowment or endowment.

¶54

(2) The scheme settled under this section for the administration of Charitable endowments may include certain provision for.-

¶55

(i) constitution of a body for the purpose of assisting in the administration of such Charitable endowments;

¶56

(ii) the method of selection of members for such committee from the persons having interest in such endowments; (iii) defining the powers and duties of the committee;

¶57

(3) The Deputy Commissioner may determine the properties of the endowment and the list of such properties shall be appended to the scheme as a schedule.

¶58

(4) The Deputy Commissioner may at anytime after consulting trustees or committee by order modify or cancel any scheme in respect of an endowment which is in force and settled under subsection (1) or any scheme in force settled or modified by any courts or any earlier enactments:

¶59

Provided that such cancellation or modification of a scheme in force settled or modified earlier shall be made only subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be imposed by the Deputy Commissioner.

¶60

(5) If the Deputy Commissioner is satisfied that any such scheme referred to in sub-section (1) is inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and rules made thereunder he may, at anytime modify it in such a manner as may be necessary to bring it into conformity with the provisions of this Act and rules made there under.

¶61

(6) Whenever any question arises as to. -

¶62

7 -

¶63

NC: 2025:KHC:39504-DB WA No. 1610 of 2024

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

(i) whether a particular property is the property of a notified institutions or declared institution under the Act; or

¶66

(ii) whether any property or money is either a religious endowment or specific endowment; or

¶67

(iii) whether any Archak or temple servant holds or held an office in any notified institution or declared institution on the basis of a hereditary right; or

¶68

(iv) whether any person is entitled by custom or otherwise to any honour emolument or perquisite in any religious institution; and what is the existing usage of a notified or declared institution; or

¶69

(v) whether any institution or endowment is wholly or partly of a religious or of secular character and whether any property or money has been given wholly or partly for religious or secular purpose; or

¶70

(vi) where any property or money has been given for the support of an institution which is partly of a religious and partly of a secular character or the performance of any service or charity connected with such an institution or the performance of a charity which is partly of a religious and partly of a secular character or where any property or money given is appropriated partly to religious and partly to secular purposes, as to what portion of such property or money shall be allocated to religious purpose; or

¶71

(vii) to accord sanction of dittam and seva list in respect of notified institutions having gross annual income of rupees one lakh and above but below Rupees ten lakhs; or

¶72

(viii) any dispute between the servant of a notified institution and the committee of management.

¶73

the Deputy Commissioner after hearing the parties concerned shall by order decide it.

¶74

(7) Any person aggrieved by any order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under any of the foregoing provisions, shall appeal within one month of the date of receipt of the order to the Commissioner.

¶75

(8) The Commissioner may after hearing the aggrieved person and other contending parties, pass appropriate order in accordance with law.”

¶76

6. A plain reading of Sub-section (6) of Section 25-B of the

¶77

Act,1997 indicates that the same is a "stand alone provision" and

¶78

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:39504-DB WA No. 1610 of 2024

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

cannot be confined to disputes arising from or in connection with a scheme framed under Section 25-B of the 1997 Act. The heading of the Section 25-B of the 1997 Act also indicates that it contains provisions for settlement of a scheme and for deciding certain disputes. The language of Sub-section (6) of Section 25-B of the 1997 Act is unambiguous and it clearly empowers the Deputy Commissioner to decide the dispute. We find no reason to depart from the golden rule of literal interpretation. The language must be construed to mean as it reads. The Deputy Commissioner is appointed in terms of Section 4 of the 1997 Act.

¶81

We find no provision under the 1997 Act, which would suggest that the powers to adjudicate the disputes are vested with the Commissioner and not by the Deputy Commissioner. The said contention runs contrary to the plain language of Sub-section (6) of Section 25-B of the 1997 Act.

¶82

8. The reference to Rule 3 of the Rules also does not carry the

¶83

appellant's case any further. Rule 3 of the Rules reads as under:

¶84

“3. Classification of notified institutions and their prescribed authorities.-(1) For the purpose of the Act and these rules, the notified institutions are classified under the following categories, namely.-

¶85

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:39504-DB WA No. 1610 of 2024

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

(a) Category 'A' notified institutions whose gross annual income exceeds ¹[rupees twenty-five lakhs];

¶88

(b) Category 'B' notified institutions whose gross annual income exceeds rupees five lakhs but does not exceed rupees twenty-five lakhs;

¶89

(c) Category 'C' notified institutions whose gross annual income does not exceed rupees five lakhs.”

¶90

The said Rules does not in any manner curtail the power of the Deputy Commissioner under sub-section (6) of Section 25-B of the 1997 Act. We are not persuaded to accept that there is any conflict between Rule 3 of the Rules and Section 25-B(6) of the Act, 1997 and there is no substance in the submissions to the aforesaid effect.

¶91

However, even if it is accepted – which we do not – that there is any conflict between the language of the Rules and the 1997 Act, it is settled law that the Rules framed under the Act being a delegated legislation cannot override the express provisions of the main enactment.

¶92

11. In Kalpataru Agroforest Enterprises vs Union Of India:

¶93

2002 (3) SCC 692 , the Supreme Court found that Rule 32 of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 1989 restricted the

¶94

10 -

¶95

NC: 2025:KHC:39504-DB WA No. 1610 of 2024

¶96

HC-KAR

¶97

scope of review as provided under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act

¶98

1987 and, in that context held as under:

¶99

“15. It is thus apparent that Rule 32 restricts the scope of power of review vested under Section 18(3)(f) of the Act to non-appealable orders and leaves out from its ambit orders which are appealable under Section 23 of the Act though such orders could be reviewed in view of Section 114 and Rule 1 of Order 47 CPC. To the extent indicated above, Rule 32 runs counter to Section 18(3)(f) of the Act. As Rule 32 is repugnant to the statutory provision of clause (f) of sub-section (3) of Section 18, it is certainly bad and in no case can it be allowed to override the specific provision of the Act. In this view of the matter, the High Court erred in not considering the appeal of the appellant on merits on the ground that the review petition was not maintainable under Rule 32.”

¶100

It is trite law that delegated legislation cannot override or

¶101

supplant the enabling enactment. The well known text on statutory interpretation – Justice G.P Singh Principles of Statutory Interpretation 14^th Edition – states the proposition as under:

¶102

“The power to make subordinate legislation is derived from the enabling Act and it is fundamental that the delegate on whom such power is conferred has to act within the limits of the authority conferred by the Act”

¶103

The next question to be addressed is whether the order

¶104

dated 08.10.2015, which was impugned in the writ petition, is required to be set aside. Considering that the dispute has been remanded to respondent No.2 for a decision afresh, the order

¶105

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:39504-DB WA No. 1610 of 2024

¶106

HC-KAR

¶107

dated 08.10.2015, which was the subject matter of challenge before the learned Single Judge, ought to have been set aside. Since, respondent no.2 is required to adjudicate the disputes afresh, the said authority cannot be held bound by the findings in the order dated 08.10.2015.

¶108

As noted above, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 readily accepts that respondent No.2 would be required to ignore the order dated 08.10.2015 for the purpose of deciding the dispute afresh. In this view, the order dated 08.10.2015 is set aside and it is clarified that respondent No.2 will decide the subject dispute as to whether the appellant has a hereditary right to be appointed as Pradhana Archaka, uninfluenced by any observation made in the order dated 08.10.2015.

¶109

The only question that needs to be considered is the interim arrangement till the decision is rendered by respondent No.2 pursuant to impugned order. The learned Single Judge has directed that order dated 08.10.2015 authorising the respondent

¶110

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:39504-DB WA No. 1610 of 2024

¶111

HC-KAR

¶112

No.4 to conduct the pooja will continue to be operative till the decision is taken by respondent No.2.

¶113

We do not find any reason to interfere with the said interim arrangement in the present appeal, at this stage. We note that the learned Single Judge has directed respondent No.2 to render a decision within a period of 60 days. Undisputedly, the order dated 08.10.2015 which was the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition, is in favour of respondent No.4 and the learned Single Judge has found no ground to disturb the same at the interim stage.

¶114

In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed, with a direction that respondent No.2 shall decide the subject dispute uninfluenced by any observations made in the order dated 08.10.2015. However, we extend the time for respondent No.2 to pass a reasoned order, in compliance with the impugned order, to a period of 60 days from date.

¶115