Sri. Poojary Arjunappa Vs State of Karnataka

SRI POOJARY ARJUNAPPA S/O LATE POOJARY KULLAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT SRI DHARAMARAYASWAMY TEMPLE STREET ANEKAL TOWN, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 106.

¶12

... PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI VIVEK REDDY, SR. ADVOCATE A/W., SRI SACHIN B. S., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA MUZARAI DEPARTMENT

¶16

2

¶17

VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶18

2 . THE COMMISSIONER RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ALURU VENKATA RAO ROAD CHAMARAJAPETE BENGALURU - 560 018.

¶19

3 . DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU - 560 030.

¶20

4 . TAHSILDAR AND MUZARAI OFFICER ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 106.

¶21

5 . SRI MANOJ KUMAR S/O VENUGOPAL AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS DHARMARAYASWAMY TEMPLE STREET ANEKAL TOWN, BENGALURU - 562 106.

¶22

6 . SRI CHANDRAPPA S/O SRI RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT THIGALARA PETE ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT – 562 106. ... RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT. PRATHIBHA R. K. AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SIRI RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5; SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SR. ADVOCATE A/W., SRI G.B.NANDISH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R6)

¶24

3

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH IMPUGNED ORDER DATED.23.11.2019 BEARING NO.DVS/CR/66/2010-11, ORDER DTD.05.4.2022 IN NO.DVS/CR/127/2021-22 PASSED BY THE R-4 S PER ANNEXURE-A AND B AND ETC.,

¶26

IN WRIT PETITION No.7092 OF 2025

¶27

BETWEEN:

¶28

VAHINKULA SEVA SANGHA (R) THE THIGALARAPETE ANEKAL TOWN ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI CHANDRAPPA UNDER THE KARNATAKA SOCIETITES REGISTRATION ACT.

¶29

... PETITIONER

¶30

(BY SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SR. ADVOCATE A/W., SRI G.B.NANDISH GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶31

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENTS M.S.BUILDING DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR BEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . THE TAHASILDAR ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT – 562 107. ... RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SMT. PRATHIBHA R. K., AGA)

¶33

4

¶34

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER SANGHA DATED 31.01.2025 VIDE ANNEXUREC AND GRANT PERMISSION TO PERFORM KARAGA MAHOTSAVA AND CARRY KARAGA AT ANEKAL DHARMARAYA SWAMY TEMPLE, AT ANEKAL WHICH COMMENCE FROM 04.04.2025 TO 17.04.2025.

¶35

IN WRIT PETITION No.9045 OF 2025

¶36

BETWEEN:

¶37

1 . SRI POOJARI ARJUNAPPA AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS S/O LATE KULLAPPA

¶38

2 . A.RAMESH

¶39

S/O POOJARI ARJUNAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶40

3 . V.P.MANOJKUMAR S/O LATE VENUGOPAL AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

¶41

ALL ARE R/AT NO.36 NEAR DHARMARAYASWAMY TEMPLE SANTEBEEDI, ANEKAL – 562 106.

¶42

... PETITIONERS

¶43

(BY SRI LOHITASWA BANAKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶44

AND:

¶45

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶46

5

¶47

2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶48

3 . THE TAHASILDAR ANEKAL TALUK ANEKAL – 562 106.

¶49

... RESPONDENTS

¶50

(BY SMT. PRATHIBHA R. K., AGA)

¶51

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PERMIT THE PERFORMING OF THE KARAGA FESTIVAL BY THE P-2 AND P-3 ON CHAITRA HUNNIME BETWEEN 04.04.2025 TO 17.04.2025.

¶52

THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 08.04.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶53

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶54

CAV ORDER

¶55

Writ Petition No.13103 of 2022 and Writ Petition No.9045 of 2025 are by the same petitioner and his children. Writ Petition No.7092 of 2025 is preferred by the rival claimant. The claim in these cases is, who should perform the ensuing Karaga of

¶56

6

¶57

Dharmarayaswamy Temple, Anekal in the Karaga Mahotsava to be held on 12-04-2025.

¶58

In this order Poojary Arjunappa, the petitioner in Writ Petition 13103 of 2022 and other petitioners in W.P.No.9045 of 2025 would be referred to as the petitioner inter alia , and respondent No.6 in Writ Petition No.13103 of 2022 who is the petitioner in Writ Petition No.7092 of 2025 would be referred to as respondent No.6.

¶59

For the sake of brevity, facts obtaining in Writ Petition No.13103 of 2022 would be narrated.

¶60

Heard Sri Vivek Reddy and Sri D.R. Ravishankar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Udaya Holla, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.6 and Smt Prathibha R K, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 4 in W.P.No.13103 of 2022 and for all the respondents in W.P.Nos.7092 of 2025 and 9045 of 2025.

¶61

7

¶62

5. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:

¶63

Poojari Arjunappa, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.13103 of 2022, claims to be in the lineage of hereditary archaks of Shree Dharmarayaswamy Temple, Anekal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Temple’ for short) as his fore-fathers are said to be performing poojas in the Temple for many generations now. The petitioner is said to have been carrying Karaga every year. On account of his old age, his grandson Manoj Kumar is said to have become eligible to carry Karaga. The dispute does not generate today.

¶64

The dispute with regard to hereditary archak and carrying of Karaga of the Temple comes about in an appeal in R.A.No.46 of 1983, in which the right of the petitioner to carry Karaga annually is recognized. The recognition is affirmed in R.S.A.No.412 of 1984. In view of the aforesaid orders, the petitioner is said to have been carrying Karaga annually throughout.

¶65

When things stood thus, it is the averment in the petition that one Sri Chandrappa, the 6^th respondent claiming to the

¶66

8

¶67

representative of Vahinkula Seva Sangha and admittedly not in the lineage of hereditary archak is said to have represented to the Tahsildar of the Taluk and the Tahsildar by an Official Memorandum, permitted the 6^th respondent to carry Karaga at the annual Mahotsava. The petitioner challenges the same in Writ Petition No.18266 of 2011. This comes to be disposed of on 13-09-2011, with a direction to the Tahsildar to consider the judgment of civil Court and pass necessary orders. The petitioner then files an application to carry Karaga for the said year. This comes to be rejected. The petitioner was again before this Court in Writ Petition No. 13222-225 of 2012. The writ petitions comes to be disposed, directing the petitioner to approach the civil Court, in terms of the order of the learned single Judge dated 10-07-2012.

¶68

The said order comes to be questioned by the petitioner before the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.5719-22 of 2012. The order of the learned single Judge was set aside and the Tahsildar was directed to act accordingly, in terms of the civil Court’s order and not treating it as a precedent for the ensuing year. This is questioned by the 6^th respondent before the Apex Court and the

¶69

9

¶70

Apex Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition in S.L.P.No.2685457 of 2013 with a direction to the Tahsildar to take a final decision in the matter.

¶71

An Official Memorandum comes to be issued by the Tahsildar to conduct Karaga on rotation basis. This is again questioned by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.6097 of 2017 & connected cases. This comes to be allowed by setting aside the order of the Tahsildar by the learned single Judge on 8-04-2019. It is the contention that without considering the contentions of the petitioner, the 4^th respondent/Tahsildar again passes an order holding that nowhere in the Court proceedings it is mentioned that the petitioner is a hereditary archak. After the said order of the Tahsildar, for two years owing to COVID-19 Karaga festival did not take place in Anekal.

¶72

Then comes 2022. The 6^th respondent files an application seeking to perform Karaga Mahotsava claiming that he is the hereditary archak. The Tahsildar permits the 6^th respondent to perform Karaga in terms of his order dated 5-04-2022. It is this

¶73

10

¶74

that forms the subject matter in Writ Petition No.13103 of 2022. In Writ Petition No.9045 of 2025, while the facts by and large remain the same, what is sought is a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to permit either of the children of Poojary Arjunappa i.e., the 2^nd petitioner or the 3^rd petitioners to perform Karaga . Writ Petition No.7092 of 2025 is filed by the 6^th respondent seeking a direction to consider his representation and permit him to perform Karaga . The Tahsildar was directed to consider all the claims and pass necessary orders. The Tahsildar has passed an order on 2-04-2025 during the pendency of these proceedings. Therefore, the issue in the lis is, who should perform ensuing Karaga on 12-04-2025.

¶75

The learned senior counsel Sri Vivek Reddy and Sri D.R. Ravishankar representing the petitioners and the 5^th respondent/temple would in unison vehemently contend that the 6^th respondent/Chandrappa has no right to contend that he should be permitted to perform Karaga . He is not the hereditary archak. He is not in the lineage of the petitioner, Poojary Arjunappa. It is only the two children – Ramesh and Manoj Kumar are entitled to perform

¶76

11

¶77

Karaga . It is erroneous that the 6^th respondent on an application made in the year 2011 begins to perform Karaga contrary to law. Some importance is attached to the performance of Karaga, as it is the hereditary archaks who were in law entitled to carry Karaga. They would further submit that the civil Court in R.A.No.46 of 1983 which is affirmed by this Court in R.S.A.No.412 of 1984 has recognized the right of Poojary Arjunappa for performance of annual Karaga . From no where springs the 6^th respondent and has misled the Tahsildar on every occasion seeking to performance of Karaga.

¶78

Per contra, the learned senior counsel Sri Udaya Holla appearing for the 6^th respondent would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that the son of Poojary Arjunappa, one Ramesh is physically unfit to perform Karaga and the second son is ineligible to perform Karaga. The learned senior counsel would emphasize that on three occasions in the years 2016, 2018 and 2023 Ramesh was given permission to perform Karaga. He has failed to perform Karaga . In one occasion in the year 2023 it was alleged that he has breached the norms of Karaga and a crime had

¶79

12

¶80

been registered against him. With all these facts, the learned senior counsel would submit that there is no declaration that the petitioner is the hereditary archak and therefore, cannot claim that he should perform Karaga . He seeks dismissal of the petition filed by Poojary Arjunappa and allowing of the petition filed by him.

¶81

The learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that Ramesh, Son of Poojary Arjunappa has failed to complete Karaga every time he was given. But, would admit the fact that the Tahsildar nowhere records that due to health condition of Ramesh he could not perform Karaga. She would further contend that the Temple is now a declared institution and once a declared institution, there should be adjudication with regard to who is the hereditary archak which has not happened till today. The application filed by Ramesh is still pending consideration at the hands of the Competent Authority. Therefore, performance of Karaga on 12-04-2025 cannot be given to Ramesh. It is only Chandrappa who is entitled to perform.

¶82

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned senior counsel and the learned

¶83

13

¶84

Additional Government Advocate and have perused the material on record.

¶85

The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. They would not require any reiteration. A little walk in the history would be necessary to consider the issue. It must be taken from a judgment in R.A.No.46 of 1983 disposed of on 03-04-1984 by the first Appellate Court where the judgment and decree of the trial Court in O.S.No.395 of 1979 is set aside and an order is passed allowing the claim of Poojary Arjunappa. This is not in dispute. While so doing, the first Appellate Court has made copious references with regard to the right of Poojary Arjunappa. A Regular Second Appeal filed against the said order comes to be dismissed by this Court in R.S.A.No.412 of 1984. The 6^th respondent is nowhere in the picture. The tussle is between several others. 6^th respondent comes into the picture only when the Tahsildar passes an order permitting him to perform Karaga in the year 2011 i.e., on 13-04-2011. The challenge is accepted and Writ Petition No.18266 of 2011 comes to be disposed of by the following order:

¶86

14

¶87

“….

¶88

3. It is contended by the Counsel for the petitioner that the Tahsildar has neither taken note of the judgment and decree passed on the civil side in RSA No.412/1984 arising out of RA No.46/1983. wherein the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.395/1979 was set aside. It is also his contention that the Tahsildar has not taken note of the order passed in W.P.No.9189/2010, wherein the submission made by the Government Pleader was placed on record stating that if a representation were to be made by the son of Poojari Arjunappa petitioner in the said writ petition, the same will be considered after notice to the concerned persons.

¶89

4. I have perused the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.9189/2010 disposed of on 27.08.2010 vide Annexure-B and the decree passed in the Regular Appeal and the Regular Second Appeal referred to above.

¶90

5. The Tahsildar has merely proceeded on the basis that as Chandrappa had performed the rituals of carrying Karaga since 2008-09, it was appropriate to entrust the same to him for the year 2011 during the ceremony that was held between 14.04.2011 to 23.04.2011. The effect of the orders passed by the Civil Court and the effect of the orders on the civil side in the Regular Appeal and the Regular Second Appeal are not taken note of.

¶91

6. Learned Government Pleader submits that the Tahsildar is seized of the matter and is considering the representation submitted by petitioner No.1 and the rights of the parties will be examined and a reasoned order will be passed taking note of the litigation and after hearing the concerned parties.

¶92

7. In the light of this submission, this writ petition is disposed of directing the Tahsildar to pass appropriate orders after hearing the affected parties and after taking note of the judgments rendered by the Civil Court as modified in appeal by this Court, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Tahsildar shall not be influenced by the findings recorded in the impugned order while passing the order afresh.”

¶93

15

¶94

The Tahsildar who was directed to re-consider the matter after hearing the parties again passes an identical order. This becomes the subject matter of Writ Petition No.13222-225 of 2012. This comes to be disposed on 10-07-2012 directing the petitioner to approach the civil Court to recognize his rights. This is challenged by the petitioner in Writ Appeal No.5719–5722 of 2012. This is disposed of by the Division Bench by the following order:

¶95

6. Having heard the counsel for all parties, we have noticed that on an earlier occasion in W.P.Nos.2531-34/12 the Tahsildar, Anekal was directed to consider the representations of the appellants-1 and 2. The Applications of the appellants came to be rejected by the Tahsildar on the ground that the 2^nd appellant - Ramesh has been working as a Lineman at Karnataka Electricity Board. Therefore, he is not entitled to carry the karaga on the day of the festival. It is also contended by the respondent that on one or two occasions the karaga festival was not taken to the area where SC and ST people are residing and on account of the same, the SC & ST people were not happy. It is also contended that Vahnikula Seva Sangha represented by its Secretary - Chandrappa has objected to grant such permission in favour of the appellants herein. Based on the objection of the 6^th respondent - Vahnikula Seva Sangha permission has been granted to carry the karaga by one Chandrappa, who is none other than the Secretary of the said Sangha. But while passing the order, the rights of the appellants are not considered by the Tahsildar. Merely because on an earlier occasion in the year 2009 Chandrappa was permitted to carry the karaga cannot be a ground for. the Tahsildar to allow him to continue to carry the karaga, if

¶96

16

¶97

the appellant-1 is an hereditary Archak and appellant-2 is his son. In the earlier round of litigation, it is already decided that there cannot be any bar for a person to carry the karaga if he has been gainfully employed elsewhere. But this court cannot forget that during relevant period, certain rituals have to be observed by the person who has to carry karaga and he has to seek permission of the Department and has to obtain leave since he is not supposed to work during relevant period. But the hereditary right of Archak cannot be removed on the ground that 6^th respondent - Sangha is objecting for the same and it is also not for the Secretary of the Sangha to say that if Chandrappa is permitted there will not be any objection by such entry. It is not based on the - opinion of the entire community people of Vahnikula Kshatriyas. The Tahsildar cannot pass an order as to who has to carry karaga. If such right is vested with the hereditary archakship, we should have considered the request of the appellants to permit them to carry the karaga in the ensuing festival. But we are unable to consider the case of the 2^nd appellant - Ramesh, since he is working in KEB and he is required to obtain prior permission at least 15 days prior to the date of commencement of karaga. Since such a permission is not obtained so far.

¶98

7. In the circumstances, these appeals are disposed off. The order of the Tahsildar, Anekal dt.3.4.2012 passed in case No.DVS.CR.66/2010-11 is set aside and modified holding that the said order shall not be precedent for the ensuing year and if the-appellants-1 and 2 are the hereditary archaks and if an application is filed for the next karaga festival by producing all necessary documents 2^nd appellant to carry the karaga festival, shall be considered in accordance with law.”

¶99

It appears that the 6^th respondent challenges this order of the Division Bench before the Apex Court in WLP 26854-57 of 2013. The Apex Court rejects the S.L.P by the following order:

¶100

17

¶101

“UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

¶102

O R D E R

¶103

After hearing both the parties, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the High Court of Karnataka.

¶104

The special leave petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.

¶105

Tahsildar will take a final decision after giving both parties an appropriate hearing.”

¶106

The Apex Court while so disposing of, directed the Tahsildar to take a decision by giving both parties appropriate hearing. The direction results in an outlandish order of the Tahsildar making performance of Karaga by rotation. Therefore, the 6^th respondent got to perform Karaga on certain occasions. This is challenged by Ramesh in Writ Petition No.49540 of 2016. A coordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the writ petition by setting aside the order passed by the Tahsildar by the following order:

¶107

It is averred in W.P.No.6097/2017 that one Chandrappa viz., respondent No.6 in the aforesaid writ petition claiming himself to be an Archak started interfering with the affairs of the Temple and an order was passed by the Tahsildar on 03.4.2012 permitting him to perform Karaga ceremony for the year 2012. The aforesaid order was assailed by hereditary Archaks in a writ petition viz., W.P.No.13222-225/2012, which was which was dismissed. However, the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge was set aside by the

¶108

18

¶109

Division Bench in W.A.No.5719/2012, which was disposed of on 08.4.2013 with a direction to the Tahsildar to permit hereditary Archak to carry Karaga if the representation is filed for the ensuing year. Accordingly representation was filed on behalf of the petitioners, however, no decision was taken on the representation of the petitioners. The Karaga festival could not be conducted for the year 2013 and 2014. The respondent No.6 being aggrieved by the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court filed Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, which was disposed of by the Supreme Court with a direction to the Tahsildar to take a final decision after giving both the parties an opportunity. The Tahsildar by an order dated 11.05.2016, directed both the parties to conduct Karaga Mahotsav on rotational basis. Accordingly, it was directed that for the year 2016, Karaga Mahotsav may be celebrated by Ramesh who is the son of Arjun viz., the hereditary Archak of the temple and thereafter the next year the Karaga Mahotsav was directed to be celebrated by respondent No.6. In the aforesaid factual background, these petitions are filed.

¶110

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by the Tahsildar is contrary to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court which has been upheld by the Supreme court. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate supported the order passed by the Tahsildar and has submitted that the aforesaid order has been passed with a view to maintain harmony in the society and the order passed by the Tahsildar is neither illegal nor is arbitrary. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 submitted that the Temple in question has been taken by Muzrai department and the hereditary rights of the Archaks in respect of Temple in question are yet to be determined. Therefore, the petitioners cannot seek absolute right to celebrate Karaga Mahotsav and the order passed by the Tahsildar does not call for any interference.

¶111

I have considered the submissions made on both sides. From perusal of the order dated 14.02.1996 passed in RSA No.412/1984, it is evident that father of Ramesh, who was arrayed as a defendant in the suit was working as an Archak. The aforesaid finding was recorded on the basis of admissions made by Plaintiff Witnesses Nos.1 to 4. The

¶112

19

¶113

relevant extract of the order passed by Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.5719-22/2012 reads as under:

¶114

"But the hereditary right of archak cannot be removed on the ground that 6^th respondent -Sangha is objecting for the same and it is also not for the Secretary of the Sangha to say that if Chandrappa is permitted there will not be any objection by such entry. It is not based on the opinion of the entire community people of Vahnikula Kshatriyas. The Tahsildar cannot pass an order as to who has to carry Karaga. If such right is vested with the hereditary archakship, we should have considered the request of the appellants to permit them to carry the karaga in the ensuing festival. But we are unable to consider the case of the 2^nd appellant-Ramesh since he is working in KEB and he is required to obtain prior permission at least 15 days prior to the date of commencement of Karaga. Since such a permission is not obtained so far.

¶115

In the circumstances, these appeals are disposed of. the order of the Tahsildar, Anekal dated 3.4.2012 passed in case No.DVS.CR.66/2010-11 is set aside and modified holding that the said order shall not be precedent for the ensuing year and if the appellants 1 and 2 are the hereditary archaks and if an application is filed for the next karaga festival by producing all necessary documents 2^nd appellant to carry the karaga festival, shall be considered in accordance with law."

¶116

The aforesaid order was upheld by the Supreme Court. However, it was directed that Tahsildar shall take a final decision after giving both parties an appropriate hearing.

¶117

6. The Tahsildar, however, has passed an order which reads as follows:

¶118

"Therefore, as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed this authority to take one clear decision, in this regard, it was decided that without any blemish give opportunity to both the parties to conduct Karaga mahotsav on rotation basis."

¶119

7. The aforesaid order passed by the Tahsildar is contrary to the order passed by the Division Bench. It is also

¶120

20

¶121

pertinent to mention here that Hon'ble Supreme court no where directed the Tahsildar to give both the parties opportunities to conduct Karaga mahotsav on rotation basis. The division Bench of this Court has clearly held that hereditary right of the Archak cannot be taken away. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from the vice of non application of mind and is cryptic and is arbitrary. The impugned order does not contain any reasons for permitting both the parties to perform Karaga festival on rotation basis. The impugned order is therefore, quashed and the Tahsildar is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties within a period of three months in the light of the observations made by Division Bench of this Court. Since, the preparation for karaga festival has to commence from 9.04.2019, by way of adhoc arrangement, it is directed that hereditary Archak shall perform Karaga mahotsav for the year 2019.

¶122

Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of.”

¶123

The Tahsildar was directed to pass orders afresh. There comes in COVID-19. Two years no Karaga festival was held during the years 2020 and 2021.

¶124

Then comes 2022. 6^th respondent again springs into action. He submits application for performance of Karaga before the Tahsildar. He is permitted and the claim of the petitioner is declined. This is challenged by the petitioner. Owing to his old age and not having the strength to carry Karaga, companion petition is

¶125

21

¶126

filed seeking carrying of Karaga either of his sons – Ramesh or Manoj Kumar.

¶127

The only claim of the 6^th respondent is that Ramesh is obese and is unfit to carry Karaga and that he has failed to complete the Karaga on earlier occasions. These factors cannot throw the right of the petitioner or his children who have been agitating right from 1983 and have secured orders at the hands of the civil Court, Division Bench of this court and the coordinate Bench of this Court to the winds, by a stroke of pen by the Tahsildar. It is un-understandable as to how the Tahsildar has generated litigation after litigation by passing orders at his whim and fancy.

¶128

The Tahsildar, at the outset, could not have passed an order directing performance of Karaga by rotation and on the second occasion given it to the 6^th respondent to perform Karaga who the learned senior counsel for the 6^th respondent would admit that he is not in the lineage of archaks of the temple. Therefore, the right of the petitioner and his family is being trampled upon by the

¶129

22

¶130

Tahsildar at the behest of 6^th respondent. Not for nothing that the first Appellate Court recognized the right of the petitioner and not for nothing orders have been passed by the Division Bench of this Court. The only observation was, if the petitioners are hierarchy archaks and if they file an application, it should be considered. The application is filed diligently by the petitioner and the Competent Authority does not pass any order on the application, but tries to play with the emotions of devotees by generating litigation on passing orders contrary to the earlier orders passed by the civil Court, this Court and the Apex Court.

¶131

A perusal at the order impugned or the order dated 02.04.2025 passed during the pendency of the petitions fly foul of all the earlier orders. Though the Tahsildar notices all the orders that are passed earlier which are quoted supra , but still passes an order contrary to them only, on the score that Ramesh who was permitted to perform Karaga has failed to perform Karaga on the previous occasions. While that can be a ground on which the right of the petitioner to be stifled, it becomes necessary to notice that any untoward incident, any harm caused to the public during

¶132

23

¶133

Karaga owing to performance of Karaga by Ramesh, son of Poojary Arjunappa would be the sole responsibility and also lose the right to perform Karaga in future, unless the failure is justified on justifiable reasons. The jurisdictional Police shall extend such police protection during performance of Karaga and see that no lurking dispute between the parties to perform Karag a would result in untoward incident.

¶134

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶135

O R D E R

¶136

(i) Writ Petition No.13103 of 2022 is allowed. Impugned orders dated 23-11-2019 and 5-04-2022 stand quashed. As a consequence thereof, order dated 02.04.2025 also stands quashed. The petitioners are entitled to all consequential benefits that would flow from the said order.

¶137

(ii) Writ Petition No.9045 of 2025 is allowed in part. Mandamus issues to the Tahsildar to permit the 2^nd petitioner/Ramesh to perform Karaga in the ensuing Karaga festival, subject to aforementioned conditions and observations.

¶138

24

¶139

(iii) Writ Petition No.7092 of 2025 stands dismissed.

¶140

Pending applications if any, also stand disposed.

¶141

SD/-

¶142

(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶143

bkp CT:SS

Sri. Poojary Arjunappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Poojary Arjunappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri R Madhusudhan Vs the Bank of Baroda

Sri. Srikanta Upadhyay, Vs Icici Bank Ltd.

Tekarch Technology Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Laxmipat Dudheria Vs the Regional Passport Office

Manappuram Finance Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri K Ananth Kumar Vs State of Karnataka