Allowed¶62

Sri N Mahesh v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Sept 2025WP/14331/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Lack of jurisdiction; prescribed authority under Section 69-B; Section 50 enquiry competence; Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner; Tahsildar; specific delegation; Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act 1997; seva fund and donation collection; confiscation; Archak; Nagalingeshwara Swami Devasthanam; Thumnerale village; Nanjanagud Taluk; Mysuru district; participation in enquiry no bar; jurisdiction goes to root of matter; writ petition allowed; order quashed; Annexure-G; Articles 226 and 227; GM-R/C.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; the impugned order dated 29.07.2024 (Annexure-G) passed by the second respondent Tahsildar is quashed, subject to the observation that the disposal cannot foreclose any enquiry that may be justified by the competent authority. ¶62

Sri N Mahesh Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶62

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 29.07.2024 passed by the Tahsildar under Section 69-B of the Act is vitiated by lack of jurisdiction, given that the prescribed authority under Section 69-B must be the authority competent to hold an enquiry under Section 50, i.e., the Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner. +1 more

¶37

Court's answer

An order under Section 69-B of the Act, including an order for confiscation, must be passed by the prescribed authority; since the prescribed authority is stipulated with reference to the officers mentioned under Section 50, it must be one of those officers, and if the power is exercised by any other officer there must be specific delegation.

¶54

Ratio / Principle

The circulars placed on record by the State were not shown to constitute delegation of the powers to function as the prescribed authority under Section 69-B of the Act.

¶38

Key takeaways

The petitioner made out a case for interference on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.ratio¶55
Participation in the enquiry does not preclude interference, as a question of jurisdiction goes to the very root of the matter, and nothing on record shows that the petitioner agreed to the jurisdiction.ratio¶60
The disposal of the petition will not foreclose any enquiry that may be justified by the competent authority.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the Archak of Sri.Nagalingeshwara Temple, Thumnerale Village, challenging the order dated 29.07.2024 (Annexure-G) of the Tahsildar, Nanjanagud Taluk, in No. DVS./PR/31/2018-19/2067, passed under Section 69-B of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997, stipulating that the petitioner cannot offer services as Archak and must hand over all belongings of the temple to the officiating Archak. Held: an order under Section 69-B, including confiscation, must be by the prescribed authority, which is an officer competent to hold an enquiry under Section 50 (Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner); a Tahsildar cannot exercise that power absent specific delegation, and the State's circulars were not shown to effect such delegation; participation in the enquiry is no bar since a question of jurisdiction goes to the very root of the matter. Petition allowed and impugned order quashed, without foreclosing any enquiry by the competent authority.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:35484 WP No. 14331 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 14331 OF 2025 (GM-R/C)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI N MAHESH S/O NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, ARCHAK, SRI.NAGALINGESHWARA TEMPLE,

¶11

THUMNERALE VILLAGE, CHIKKAIAHNA CHATRE HOBLI, NANJANAGUD TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571301.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N

¶14

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

(BY SRI. K.L. SREENIVAS.,ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:35484 WP No. 14331 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THE TAHSILDAR, NANJANAGUD TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571301.

¶22

SRI.NAGALINGESHWARA TEMPLE, THUMNERALE VILLAGE, CHIKKAIAHNA CHATRE HOBLI, NANJANAGUD TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571301, REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SMT.NAVYA SHEKHAR., AGA FOR R1 AND R2)

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED ON 29/07/2024 BY THE TAHSILDAR, NANJANAGUD TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - THE SECOND RESPONDENT IN NO. DVS./PR/31/2018-19/2067 VIDE ANNX-G.

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:35484 WP No. 14331 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

The petitioner is aggrieved by the second respondent's order dated 29.07.2024 [ Annexure-G ] which undisputedly is under Section 69-B of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 [for short, 'the Act' ]. The second respondent, by this impugned order dated 29.07.2024, has stipulated that the petitioner cannot offer services in Nagalingeshwara Swami Devasthanam as the Archak and that he must hand over all belongings of the temple to the person who is officiating as the Archak.

¶32

Mr. K. L. Srinivas, the learned counsel for

¶33

the petitioner, has pitched the petitioner's grievance on the short canvass of the lack of jurisdiction. The learned counsel submits that the Section 69-B of the Act is categorical that the prescribed authority must pass orders on a complaint received about collection of funds and that such prescribed authority must be

¶34

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:35484 WP No. 14331 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

the authority competent to hold an enquiry as contemplated under Section 50 of the Act. The learned counsel, relying upon the provisions of Section 50 of the Act, submits that the prescribed authority must be either the concerned Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner and it cannot be the jurisdictional Tahsildar.

¶38

Ms. Navya Shekhar, the learned Additional Government Advocate who is called upon to answer this ground, places on record the copies of certain circulars to assert that the Tahsildar is entrusted with passing certain orders under the Act in case of temples under ' C ' category. However, the learned Additional Government Advocate cannot assert that these circulars are for delegation of the powers to function as the prescribed authority under Section 69-B of the Act.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:35484 WP No. 14331 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

The relevant provisions of Sections 50 and

¶43

69-B read as under:

¶44

50. Power to institute and hold enquiries. (1) The Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner may suo - motu or on receipt of a complaint in writing from any person having interest in any Notified Institution or Declared Institution, institute an enquiry with regard to the institution generally or for any particular purpose.

¶45

(2) The Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner may either hold the enquiry himself or authorise any officer subordinate to him to hold the enquiry and the officer authorised to hold the enquiry shall after the enquiry, submit his report to the authorising officer.

¶46

Section 69-B: Bar from collecting

¶47

fund on behalf of notified Institution or declared Institutions: - (1) No individual, organisation, Seva Samithi or development committee registered or not, shall be entitled to collect seva fund or donation for any purpose in the name of the notified or

¶48

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:35484 WP No. 14331 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

institution or declared institution unless it is sanctioned by the prescribed authority.

¶52

(2) The prescribed authority is competent to hold enquiry under section 50 and pass orders on the compliant received from any devotee or public about the unauthorised collection of fund in the name of any notified or declared institution, including the order to confiscate and to credit such fund to the account of the concerned institution

¶53

If there is to be a decision under Section 69-

¶54

B of the Act for confiscation, that order must be by the prescribed authority and because the prescribed authority is stipulated with reference to the officers mentioned under Section 50 of the Act, it has to be one of the officers mentioned therein, and if the power has to be exercised by any other officer, there must be specific delegation. This Court opines that in the circumstances the petitioner has made out a case

¶55

for interference on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

¶56

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:35484 WP No. 14331 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

Ms. Navya Shekhar submits that the

¶60

petitioner cannot succeed on this ground because he has participated in the enquiry. This Court is not persuaded to refuse interference on this ground as a question of jurisdiction goes to the very root of the matter, and there is nothing brought on record to hold that the petitioner has agreed to the jurisdiction if that could be permissible in law. This Court must therefore intervene but observing that this disposal of the petition cannot foreclose any enquiry that may be justified by the competent. In the light of the afore, the following:

¶61

ORDER

¶62

The petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 29.07.2024 [ Annexure-G ] is quashed but subject to

¶63

the observation as aforesaid.

¶64

SD/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶65

Sri N Mahesh v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri N Mahesh v. the 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs Gayathri Vs the Administrator

Sri. Girish S Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Kavitha Srinath Venkatappa Vs the Union of India

Sri. Ahammad Kabeer, Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjunath Vs the Forest Department

Mr. Shashikumar Vs State of Karnataka