Allowed¶34

Sri Krishnappa v. Vs the Commissioner

Karnataka HC2 Jun 2025WP/10849/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: writ of mandamus; consideration of representation and legal notice; family temple; MuneshwaraSwamy Temple; Someshwara temple; Sy.No.106 Bilekahalli Village Bengaluru; Karnataka Hindu Religious Institution Charitable Endowments Act list; seizure of temple possession; interim protection of puja; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; Hindu Religious and Charitable Commission Commissioner; Deputy Commissioner Bengaluru Urban; Karnataka High Court 2025; GM-R/C; Suraj Govindaraj J.; writ petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed: mandamus to respondents to consider the representation dated 21.05.2020 (Annexure-G) and legal notice dated 18.06.2020 (Annexure-H); respondents directed not to interfere with the petitioner's pujas at the MuneshwaraSwamy Temple until such consideration and orders. ¶34

Sri Krishnappa v Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 21.05.2020 (Annexure-G) and the legal notice dated 18.06.2020 (Annexure-H) and consequently permit the petitioner to open the temple. +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

A mandamus is issued directing respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 21.05.2020 (Annexure G) and the legal notice dated 18.06.2020 (Annexure H).

¶38

Ratio / Principle

Until consideration of the representation/legal notice and passing of orders, the respondents shall not interfere with the pujas being conducted by the petitioner at the MuneshwaraSwamy Temple.

¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Bengaluru), 02.06.2025, Suraj Govindaraj J., W.P. No. 10849 of 2020 (GM-R/C), allowed: Petitioner asserted that the MuneshwaraSwamy Temple in Sy.No.106, Bilekahalli Village, Bengaluru was a family deity temple built by his ancestors, which the respondent-State seized under the guise of inclusion of Someshwara temple in the list prepared under the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institution Charitable Endowments Act; his representation dated 21.05.2020 (Annexure-G) and legal notice dated 18.06.2020 (Annexure-H) were unconsidered. The court, noting its interim order dated 14.10.2020 permitting the petitioner to perform puja unobstructed, issued a mandamus directing respondents to consider the representation and the legal notice, and directed that until such consideration and orders the respondents shall not interfere with the pujas conducted by the petitioner at the temple. Filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:19114 WP No. 10849 of 2020

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 10849 OF 2020 (GM-R/C)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. KRISHNAPPA V, S/O THE LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.74/3, SOMESHWARA EXTENSION, NEAR SHANTINEKETANA SCHOOL, KODI CHIKKANAHALLI ROAD, BILEKAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 076.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. JANARDHANA G, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE COMMISSION, A.V. ROAD, CHAMARAJAPET, BENGALURU - 560 018.

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. SIDDHARTH BABU RAO, AGA FOR R1 AND R2)

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:19114 WP No. 10849 of 2020

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONERS REPRESENTATION DATED 21.05.2020 UNDER ANNEXURE-G AND ALSO THE LEGAL NOTICE DATED 18.6.2020 UNDER ANNEXURE-H AND CONSEQUENTLY PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO OPEN THE TEMPLE ACCORDINGLY AND ETC.,

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Petitioner is before this court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶24

(i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 21.05.2020 under Annexure-G and also the legal notice dated 18.06.2020 under Annexure-H and consequently permit the petitioner to open the temple accordingly; and

¶25

(ii) Grant any other writ, order or direction s this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant to the petitioner in the circumstances of the case.

¶26

The contention of the petitioner is that in Sy.No.106 of Bilekahalli Village, Bengaluru, the ancestors of the petitioner had constructed a temple for the family deity Lord MuneshwaraSwamy and from then on, they have been offering pujas to the deity in said temple.

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:19114 WP No. 10849 of 2020

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

It is contended that said temple is not included under the list prepared under the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institution Charitable Endowments Act and it is only Someshwara temple, which is included in the said list.

¶30

The grievance of the petitioner is that under the guise of the inclusion of Someshwara temple in the list, the respondent-State has seized the possession of MuneshwaraSwamy Temple, which is a family temple of the petitioner, in furtherance of which the petitioners have submitted a representation dated 21.05.2020 at Annexure-G as also issued a legal notice dated 18.06.2020 under Annexure-H.

¶31

Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the said representation will be considered in accordance with law.

¶32

This court, vide order dated 14.10.2020 had permitted the petitioner by way of an interim direction to perform puja at the MuneshwaraSwamy Temple in Survey Number 106, Bilekahalli Village, Bengaluru, and directed the respondent not to obstruct with the same. In that view of the matter, I pass the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

(i) Writ petition is allowed.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:19114 WP No. 10849 of 2020

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

(ii) A mandamus is issued directing respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners dated the 21.05.2020 at Annexure G and the legal notice dated 18.06.2020 at Annexure H.

¶39

(iii) Until such consideration and orders being passed, the respondents are directed not to interfere with the pujas being conducted by the petitioner at the MuneshwaraSwamy Temple in Survey Number 106, Bilekahalli Village, Bangalore.

¶40

Sd/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶41

SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12 CT: BHK

Sri Krishnappa v. Vs the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Krishnappa v. Vs the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammed Shabaz Alam Vs State of Karnataka

Dholath Khan @ Muneer Khan Vs State by

Darvez Sadiq Alias Perviz Sadique Vs State by

Ravikumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Udaya Kumar H v Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Geetha R N Vs State of Karnataka