Sri Gurudath N Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri Gurudath N Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed. Orders dated 25.03.2022 (Annexure-J) by Respondent No.1 and 14.12.2011 (Annexure-H) by Respondent No.2 both set aside; matter remitted to Respondent No.2 for fresh consideration after affording opportunity of hearing to all parties; Respondent No.3 to continue performing the pooja till the dispute is considered; proceedings to conclude within three months; parties to appear before Respondent No.2 on 28.01.2026 at 3.00 p.m.; pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 14.12.2011 passed by Respondent No.2 (Deputy Commissioner) at Annexure-H is vitiated because the enquiry stood fixed for 16.12.2011 by the summons at Annexure-G — i.e., whether the Deputy Commissioner acted contrary to the calendar, unaware of the actual dates. +2 more

Court's answer

The order dated 14.12.2011 (Annexure-H) passed by Respondent No.2 is set aside: although the summons (Annexure-G) fixed the enquiry for 16.12.2011, the Deputy Commissioner passed the order on 14.12.2011 itself without regard to the regular calendar; the matter is remitted to Respondent No.2 to reconsider afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to all parties, in light of the observations in W.P.No.819 of 2003 dated 31.07.2003 (Annexure-F).

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order at Annexure-H is non-est in law.

Key takeaways

Since the order at Annexure-H is non-est in law, the order dated 25.03.2022 (Annexure-J) passed by Respondent No.1 affirming it does not survive for consideration, as Respondent No.2 had not applied its mind in a manner known to law.ratio¶52
Interim arrangement pending fresh decision: Respondent No.3, having the benefit of the order in W.P.No.819 of 2003 (Annexure-F), shall continue to perform the pooja of the temple till Respondent No.2 considers the dispute; Respondent No.2 must conclude the proceedings within an outer limit of three months from receipt of the order; parties are directed to appear before Respondent No.2 on 28 January 2026 at 3.00 p.m.ratio¶65

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 — hereditary archakship dispute, Nagalamadike Sri Subramanyeshwara Temple, Pavagada Taluk, Tumkur District. The Deputy Commissioner's order dated 14.12.2011 (Annexure-H) in Dispute Nos. DVS(2) C.R.79/1999-2000 and DVS(2) C.R.43/2007-08 was passed two days BEFORE the enquiry date of 16.12.2011 fixed by his own summons (Annexure-G); held to be contrary to the calendar, non-est in law, and set aside, with remand to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh consideration after hearing all parties, in light of the Court's earlier order in W.P.No.819 of 2003 dated 31.07.2003 (Annexure-F). Consequently, the appellate order dated 25.03.2022 (Annexure-J) of the Commissioner, Endowment Department, affirming the Deputy Commissioner's order, was also set aside. Respondent No.3 (incumbent archak) to continue performing pooja till fresh decision; proceedings to conclude within three months; parties directed to appear on 28.01.2026 at 3.00 p.m.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:53715 WP No. 20373 of 2022

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 20373 OF 2022 (GM-R/C)

BETWEEN:

SRI GURUDATH N

S/O LATE S NARAYAN SHASTRY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NAGALAMADIKE VILLAGEAND POST, PAVAGADA TALUK - 572 136 TUMKUR DISTRICT.

SRI. NAGAPANI SHARMA P S/O LATE N BALASUBRAMANIYAM AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT NAGALAMADIKE VILLAGE AND POST, PAVAGADA TALUK - 572 136 TUMKUR DISTRICT.

Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SRI.ANANTHA KUMAR P B S/O LATE N BALASUBRAMANIYAM AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT NAGALAMADIKE VILLAGE AND POST, PAVAGADA TALUK - 572 136 TUMKUR DISTRICT.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. SRIKANTH M P., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE COMMISSIONER HINDHU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT

MALEMAHADESHWARA VARTHA BHAVAN

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:53715 WP No. 20373 of 2022

HC-KAR

ALUR VENKATA RAO ROAD, CHAMPARAJPETE BENGALURU - 560 018.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR DISTRICT TUMKUR - 572 101.

SRI. P BHADRINATH S/O LATE P BLASUBRAMANIYAM, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS ARCHAK, SRI. SUBRAMANYA TEMPLE, NAGALAMADIKE VILLAGE AND POST, PAVAGADA TALUK 572 136 TUMKUR DISTRICT.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI.G.S.BALAGANGADHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THIS W.P. FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.03.2022 PASSED ON APPEAL NO.ADM7/AP/14/201112 AND ADM 7/AP 15/2011-12 BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-J; SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.12.2011 PASSED ON DISPUTE NO.DVS(2) C.R.79/1999-2000 AND DISPUTE NO. DVS (2) C.R.43/2007-08 BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-H; DIRECT THE R-1 AND 2 TO APPOINT THE PETITIONERS AS HEREDITARY ARCHAKS OF NAGALAMADIKE SRI SUBRAMANYESHWARA TEMPLE, NAGALAMADIKE, PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT, ETC.,

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:53715 WP No. 20373 of 2022

HC-KAR

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

In this writ petition, petitioners are assailing the order dated 25.03.2022 in Appeal Nos.ADM 7/APPELLANT 14/2011-12 and ADM 7/AP15/2011-12 (Annexure-J) passed by Respondent No.1 and the dispute between the parties as per the order dated 14.12.2011 passed in Dispute No.DVS (2) C.R. 79/ 1999-2000 and Dispute No.DVS(2) C.R.43/2007-08 (Annexure-H) passed by Respondent No.2 inter-alia sought for a direction to Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to appoint the petitioners as Hereditary Archakas of Nagalamadike

Sri.Subramanyeshwara Temple, Nagalamadike, Pavagada Taluk, Tumkur District.

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:53715 WP No. 20373 of 2022

HC-KAR

Sri.M.P.Srikanth, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioners invited the attention of the Court to the order dated 14.12.2011 (Annexure-H) passed by the Respondent No.2, and further conteded that the Respondent No.2 has issued notice at Annexure-G directing the petitioners to appear for the enquiry on 16.12.2011 and therefore, the entire impugned action by the Respondent No.2 is contrary to the calendar and the Deputy Commissioner has not aware about the actual dates in the calendar and therefore, he contended that the impugned action by the Respondent No.2 requires interference in this petition.

Per contra, Sri.G.S.Balagangadhar, learned counsel representing Respondent No.3 invited the attention of the Court to the order dated 31.07.2003 in W.P.No.819 of 2003 (GM-R/C) (Annexure-F) and contended that this Court after considering the entire material on record, has remitted the matter for limited purpose, and therefore, the repeated remand by this Court

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:53715 WP No. 20373 of 2022

HC-KAR

does not arise in the facts and circumstances of the case,

as the rights of the Hereditary Archakas of the Temple in question is already crystallized and therefore, sought for dismissal of the petition.

Shri.Mahantesh Shettar, learned AGA submitted in support of the impugned orders by the Respondent - authorities.

In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined the finding recorded by this Court in W.P.No. 819 of 2003 dated 31.07.2003 (Annexure-F) to the petition. This Court allowed the writ petition filed by the Respondent No.3 herein and remitted the matter to the Deputy Commissioner to decide the rights of the parties, in accordance with law. In this regard, on careful examination of the Annexure-G, wherein the summons was issued to the petitioners herein to appear on 16.12.2011 at 03.00 pm for enquiry. However, the Respondent No.2 has passed the order on 14.12.2011

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:53715 WP No. 20373 of 2022

HC-KAR

itself without understanding the regular calendar in the month of December, 2011 and therefore, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Respondent No.2 is not aware about

the student of fifth standard arithmetic of understanding the calendar of the year and therefore, the impugned order passed by Respondent No.2 at Annexure-H dated 14.12.2011 is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to Respondent No.2 to reconsider the issue afresh, after affording opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned, in the light of the observation made by this Court in W.P.No.819 of 2003 dated 31.07.2003 (Annexure-F) to the writ petition. It is also to be noted that, in the light of the observation made above, that the impugned order at Annexure-H is non-est in law, I am of the view that the order dated 25.03.2022 (Annexure-J)

passed by the Respondent No.1 does not survive for consideration, affirming the order passed by Respondent

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:53715 WP No. 20373 of 2022

HC-KAR

No.2, as the respondent has not applied its mind in a

manner known to law.

In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) The order dated 25.03.2022 passed in Appeal Nos.ADM 7/AP 14/2011-12 and ADM 7/AP 15/2011-12 (Annexure-J) passed by Respondent No.1 is hereby set aside.

iii) The order dated 14.12.2011 passed on Dispute No.DVS(2)C.R.79/1999-2000 and Dispute No.DVS(2) C.R.43/2007-08 (Annexure-H) passed by Respondent No.2 is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the Respondent No.2 to reconsider the issue afresh after affording

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:53715 WP No. 20373 of 2022

HC-KAR

opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned.

iv) It is also made clear that as the Respondent No.3 had the benefit of the order passed by this Court as per Annexure-F in W.P.No.819 of 2003 and therefore, the interregnum benefit made in favour of Respondent No.3 insofar as the performance of the pooja of the Temple in question is concerned will be continued till the consideration of the dispute by the Respondent No.2. The Respondent No.2 is directed to conclude the proceedings at the earliest, with an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of this order.

v) Since the parties have appeared through their learned counsels and as the impugned order at Annexure-H is passed in the year 2011, I am of

9 -

NC: 2025:KHC:53715 WP No. 20373 of 2022

HC-KAR

the view that, the hearing before the

Respondent No.2, be expedited, and parties

are directed to appear before the Respondent No.2 on 28^th of January, 2026 at 3.00 pm.

In view of disposal of the writ petition, all

pending interlocutory applications are accordingly

disposed of.

Sd/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

DH, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32