Shree Marikamba Devasthanagala Vyavasthapaka Committee Vs State of Karnataka

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:30504 WP No. 25433 of 2016

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 25433 OF 2016 (GM-R/C)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SHREE MARIKAMBA DEVASTHANAGALA VYAVASTHAPAKA COMMITTEE @ SHREE MARIKAMBA VYAVASTHAPAKA COMMITTEE, SAGAR TOWN, SAGAR-577401 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT K.N. NAGENDRA S/O LATE NEELAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/O SRI RAMPURA BADAVANE NEAR RAILWAY STATION, SAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶8

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

SHREE MARIKAMBA DEVASTHANAGALA VYVASTHAPAKA COMMITTEE @ SHREE MARIKAMBA VYVASTHAPAKA COMMITTEE, SAGAR TOWN, SAGAR-577401 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY B. GIRIDHAR RAO S/O LATE SUNDER RAO, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O BEHIND CHANDA WINES, B.H. ROAD, SAGAR SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:30504 WP No. 25433 of 2016

¶13

HC-KAR

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF ENDOWMENT AND CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-01 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT (MUJARAI) M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE-01 REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY

¶17

COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS, K.G. ROAD

¶18

BANGALORE-01

¶19

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA-577201 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT

¶20

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SAGAR-577401 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT

¶21

TAHASILDAR SAGAR-577401 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT

¶22

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 6;

¶23

SRI. S.V.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANT IN I.A No.2/16)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 12.04.2016 IN NO.KUME 03 MUAAB 2014 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-H.

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:30504 WP No. 25433 of 2016

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The petitioners have challenged the proceedings of the respondent No.2 which culminated in an order bearing No.PÀAE

¶30

¶31

petitioner No.1 as a declared institution under Sections 42 and 43 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 (henceforth referred to as 'the Act, 1997').

¶32

The petitioners claim that Shree Marikamba Temple, Sagar Town, (henceforth referred to as 'the Temple') is an ancient Temple and is represented by an Executive Committee comprised of 21 members and 15 sub-committees which include a sub-committee for conducting jatra / fair which will be conducted once in three years. This fair is being conducted in the temple for more than 100 years by the Executive Committee as well as the jatra sub-committee. The petitioners claim that the accounts of the Temple are duly

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:30504 WP No. 25433 of 2016

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

audited for the period 01.07.1989 to 31.03.2014 and no irregularities or any misappropriation was detected. When things stood thus, the respondent No.3 issued a notice dated 07.10.2013 calling upon the petitioner No.1 to show cause regarding the allegations made by respondent No.4 in his report that the Committee had failed to produce the accounts of the jatra for the period 2001-2009 and why action should not be initiated under Section 42 of the Act, 1997. The petitioners contend that in response to the said notice, the petitioner No.1 submitted a reply to the respondent No.3 on 28.10.2013 contending inter alia that the audit for the period 2007 to 2013 was completed and the statement of assets and liabilities was yet to be finalized. Therefore, he sought two months time to furnish all the documents. Petitioner No.2 informed the respondent No.3 that the members of the Committee had taken charge five months prior to the date of the show cause notice and therefore, they were handicapped to readily produce the documents. The petitioners contend that the respondent No.3 failed to grant the time as sought for or as contemplated under Section 43(1) of the Act, 1997. The petitioner No.2 addressed the letter dated 06.01.2014 to the respondent No.5 stating that

¶36

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:30504 WP No. 25433 of 2016

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

accounts were given to the Auditor for the purpose of auditing and as the fair for the year 2014 was around the corner, sought for three months after the fair was over, to submit audited accounts as well as the statement of assets and liabilities. The petitioner No.1 addressed a letter dated 10.06.2014 to the respondent No.6 enclosing therewith the assets and liabilities statement and accounts of the fair. The petitioners contend that though the respondent No.3 had granted time, the respondent No.5 issued a final notice dated 13.10.2014 calling upon the petitioner No.1 to submit the accounts within seven days failing which action would be initiated under the Act, 1997. The petitioners further contend that the petitioner No.2 addressed a letter dated 13.11.2014 to the respondent No.5 enclosing therewith audited reports and also the accounts of the jatra for the period 18.02.2014 to 26.02.2014. Nonetheless, the respondent No.2 without considering the documents produced by the petitioner, passed an order dated 12.04.2016 applying the provisions of Sections 42 and 43 of the Act, 1997 to the Temple and handed it over to the department of Muzrai . The petitioners claim that though the aforesaid order was passed on 12.04.2016, the same is not

¶39

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:30504 WP No. 25433 of 2016

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

communicated to the petitioners and that the petitioners came to know of it only when it was published in the local newspaper in the second week of April 2016. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 12.04.2016, have filed this writ petition.

¶42

The writ petition is opposed by the respondent - State. It is contended that Shree Marikamba temple is a Public Temple. It is alleged that there is no proper management of Temple and since several years, the general public had formed a Committee to perform annual fairs by collecting donations from the devotees and the public at large. It is contended that one Sri A.D. Subramanya, a devotee of the Temple had filed a complaint with the respondent No.4 alleging that the Committee constituted to perform the annual fair was misusing the funds collected from the general public. It was alleged that the Committee was not keeping any accounts of the money collected nor was there any audit of the amount collected and spent. It is alleged that the money collected was not used for the development of the Temple or for improving the infrastructure therein. Based on this complaint, notices dated 21.04.2011 and 14.09.2011 were issued to the Committee to

¶43

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:30504 WP No. 25433 of 2016

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

submit accounts. The petitioners who claimed to be the President and the Secretary of the Committee failed to submit the books of accounts but orally requested the official respondents for time on the ground that the books were submitted to the Auditor and that they would submit the same soon after the Auditor returned them. It is claimed that the petitioners never submitted any accounts to the respondents in spite of several notices. The respondent No.5 therefore issued a notice dated 07.10.2013 to the petitioner No.1 under Section 43 of the Act, 1997 to the Committee to show cause as to why the Temple should not be taken over by the State Government and be handed over to the Department of Muzrai . Even after receipt of the said notice, the petitioners failed to submit any objections. Therefore, the respondents after complying with the procedure contemplated under the Act, 1997 passed the impugned order dated 12.04.2016 taking over the administration of the temple and handing it over to the Department of Muzrai . They contended that the impugned order is just and proper and no interference is warranted. It is further contended that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioners are having alternative remedy under Section

¶46

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:30504 WP No. 25433 of 2016

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

20A(1)(b) of the Act, 1997 before the Rajya Dharmika Parishat. It is also alleged that the petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands as they have suppressed the fact that a member of the Managing Committed had filed O.S Nos.3/1966, 5/2017 and 405/1999 regarding the mismanagement of the funds of the Temple and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any reliefs.

¶49

As regards the contention of the petitioners that the Act, 1997 has been struck down as unconstitutional, it is claimed that this Hon'ble Court had upheld the Act, 1997. The said order was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court which had stayed the order passed by this Court. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Apex Court vacated the interim order in so far as it related to application of Section 25 of the Act, 1997. It is contended that during the pendency of the case before the Hon’ble Apex Court, Amendment Act Nos.17/2007, 27/2011, Corrigendum No.DPAL 6 SHASANA 2011 dated 13.09.2011 and 12/2012 were brought in which were challenged before this Court and which were quashed. The respondents have challenged the Order of this Court before the Hon'ble Apex Court in petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (C)…CC

¶50

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:30504 WP No. 25433 of 2016

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

Nos.6834-6959/2016. The Hon'ble Apex Court in terms of the order dated 18.04.2016, granted an order of stay of the Order dated 17.11.2015 passed by the Division Bench of the Circuit Bench of this Court at Dharwad in W.P. No.65539/2012 and connected petitions. It is therefore contended that the impugned order dated 12.04.2016 passed by the respondent No.2 is in accordance with law and does not overreach the proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶53

The petitioners have filed Rejoinder to the statement of objections filed by the respondent – State inter alia contending that the petitioners submitted the audit report till 2018-19 before the respondent Nos.5 and 6 and the audit reports from the year 1989 till the date of filing of the rejoinder i.e., 04.01.2021 and the same have not been verified by the respondent No.6. The respondent No.2 had passed the impugned order taking over the management of the Temple by invoking the provisions of Section 43 of the Act, 1997 based on the unilateral decision taken by the Rajya Dharmika Parishat and hence, the question of petitioners filing the petition before the Rajya Dharmik Parishat under Section 20A(1)(b) of the Act, 1997 does not arise. It is further contended that notice dated

¶54

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:30504 WP No. 25433 of 2016

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

07.10.2013 relied upon by the respondent – State in its statement of objections is not referred to by the respondent No.2 while passing the impugned order which implies that the respondents are trying to take over the management of the Temple without following the due process of law. The petitioners denied the averments made in the statement of objections of the respondent – State with regard to suppression of facts by the petitioners in the writ petition and contended that the suit in O.S. No.3/1966 referred to in the statement of objections pertained to the scheme suit filed by the erstwhile Managing Committee of the Temple and that against the said judgment and decree, the present Managing Committee had filed Misc. petition No.30/2019 and the same was pending for consideration. The other suits referred to in the statement of objections of the respondent – State referred to the disputes inter se between the members and the suits filed against the Managing Committee are dismissed by the Trial Court vide Annexures 'K', 'K1', 'K2' and 'K3' to the rejoinder and the same not being challenged, have attained finality. They contended that in view of the judgment and decree passed vide Annexure ‘K’ to the Rejoinder in the scheme suit, the affairs of the

¶57

11 -

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:30504 WP No. 25433 of 2016

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

Temple will be supervised and the respondent – authorities have no jurisdiction over the management of the affairs of the Temple.

¶61

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order is passed by the respondent No.2 without hearing the petitioners and without holding any enquiry and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. He also contends that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 is contrary to Section 43 of the Act, 1997 which mandates an enquiry and only after being satisfied, an order could be passed. He, therefore, contends that the impugned order is liable to be set at nought. He further contends that though the respondent No.3 had directed the respondent No.4 to hold an enquiry, the enquiry was not conducted by the respondent No.4, but was conducted by the Additional District Commissioner that too without hearing the petitioners personally. Therefore, he contends that this is also in violation of sub-Section (6) of Section 43 of the Act, 1997 and the report submitted by the Additional District Commissioner is one without authority of law. He contends that the impugned order was passed by the respondent No.2

¶62

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:30504 WP No. 25433 of 2016

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

after five months from the date of production of the accounts of the fair, the statements of assets and liabilities and audit reports and therefore, the impugned order is one without due application of mind.

¶65

Learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, contends that the petitioners were bound to maintain accounts of the Temple periodically and were bound to produce the same whenever called upon by the respondent - authorities. He contends that since the Committee which was administering the affairs of the Temple did not produce the accounts in time, the respondent No.3 was forced to direct the respondent No.4 to conduct an enquiry. Based on the report, respondent No.2 was constrained to pass the impugned order. He also contends that the amendment to Section 25 of the Act, 1997 was held unconstitutional by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No.64805-64868/2011 and connected petitions in terms of the order dated 17.11.2015. He contends that the issue is now pending consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court which has allowed Section 25 of the Act, 1997 to operate.

¶66

13 -

¶67

NC: 2025:KHC:30504 WP No. 25433 of 2016

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

He, therefore, contends that the impugned order is just and proper and does not warrant any interference.

¶70

I have considered the submissions of the learned

¶71

Senior counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.

¶72

The order impugned in this writ petition was an executive order passed under Sections 42 and 43 of the Act, 1997. The contention of the respondents that the impugned order is to be questioned before the Rajya Dharmika Parishat under Section 20A(1)(b) of the Act, 1997 is misplaced as the issue is not whether Shree Marikamba temple is a public or private or a denominational Temple, but the question is whether there was any mismanagement in the Temple necessitating the respondents to exercise power under Sections 42 and 43 of the Act, 1997.

¶73

A perusal of the impugned order shows that no enquiry of whatsoever nature was conducted by the respondent No.3 - Commissioner for Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments before the respondent No.2 passed a drastic order such as declaring that Shree Marikamba Temple

¶74

14 -

¶75

NC: 2025:KHC:30504 WP No. 25433 of 2016

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

as subject to be regulated under Chapter VIII of the Act, 1997. The impugned order further discloses that based on a complaint of one Mr. A.D. Subramanya, the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Shivamogga had conducted an enquiry and submitted a report stating that notices were issued to the petitioners on 22.02.2011, 07.03.2011, 21.04.2011 and 14.09.2011 to furnish the accounts of the annual fair conducted between 2001 and 2009. However, the Committee did not furnish the accounts. It was also stated that the accounts maintained by the Committee were not audited. The Temple had allegedly orally informed the Tahasildar that as the accounts were not audited, it was not in a position to submit the records and that the same would be submitted after the Committee passed an appropriate resolution. The Additional Deputy Commissioner, Shivamogga, therefore assumed that the allegations made against the petitioners were true and therefore, recommended that the State Government may take over the accounts and assets of the Temple and hand over the Temple to the Department of Muzrai . The impugned order further discloses that the office of the respondent No.3 had issued a notice under Section 43 of the Act, 1997 to the

¶78

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:30504 WP No. 25433 of 2016

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

petitioner No.1 to show cause as to why the Temple should not be ordered as a declared Institution under Section 42 of the Act, 1997. The petitioner No.2 in terms of his letter dated 28.10.2013 sought two months time to furnish the accounts for getting audited. However, the Committee had failed to furnish the audited accounts. It appears that at a meeting of the 2^nd State Dharmika Parishat held on 22.09.2015, the issue was taken up and it was resolved to declare the Shree Marikamba Temple as a declared institution under Sections 42 and 43 of the Act, 1997 and to issue appropriate notification to take over the Temple.

¶81

The records produced along with the writ petition, however, gives a different picture in as much as a show cause notice dated 07.10.2013 was issued by the office of the respondent No.3 based on the report of the Deputy Commissioner dated 24.07.2012 as to why the Shree Marikamba Temple should not be declared as an 'Institution' under Section 42 of the Act, 1997. A reply was issued by the petitioner No.2 on 28.10.2013 stating that the accounts of the annual fair conducted between 2001 to 2007 were accepted at the meeting of the General Body and the audit of the accounts

¶82

16 - NC: 2025:KHC:30504 WP No. 25433 of 2016

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

of the fair and daily income for the period from 2007 to 2013 were finalized. It was stated that the Committee had taken over charge recently and therefore, two months time was sought to produce all the documents. A similar reply was sent to the respondent No.5 - Assistant Commissioner, Sagara. The Assistant Commissioner, Sagara, issued a notice dated 13.10.2014 to the petitioners to furnish the accounts within seven days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The petitioner No.2 submitted a reply to this letter on 13.11.2014 enclosing therewith the accounts concerning the fair held in 2014 and accounts for the periods: 01.07.1989 to 31.03.2007; 23.11.2007 to 31.03.2010 and 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2013. They also furnished the expenses incurred for the annual fair in 2008 and the expenses of the annual fair conducted in 2011 and other particulars. It appears that without considering these documents, the respondent No.2 has unilaterally proceeded to pass the impugned order.

¶85

When the respondents have proposed to initiate proceedings under Section 42 of the Act, 1997, they are bound to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 43 of the Act, 1997 which contemplates issuance of a notice to show cause

¶86

17 - NC: 2025:KHC:30504 WP No. 25433 of 2016

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

why the Institution should not be declared to be subject to the provisions of Chapter VIII of the Act, 1997. The notice shall also state the reasons for the action proposed and specify a reasonable time not being less than one month from the date of issue of the notice, for showing such cause. When objections are filed, the Commissioner may authorize an officer subordinate to him to hold an enquiry into the objections in the manner prescribed who shall after giving the Manager or any person having interest an opportunity of being heard submit his enquiry report to the Commissioner as to whether the Institution should be declared to be subject to the provisions of Chapter VIII of the Act, 1997 or not. After considering the enquiry report, the Commissioner should apply his mind as to whether the Institution should be declared as aforesaid and thereafter make a report to that effect to the State Government which may by notification declare the Institution to be subject to the provisions of Chapter VIII of the Act, 1997. This notification shall remain in force for a total period which shall not exceed five years from the date of the first notification or till a new Committee of management is formed to the satisfaction of the State Government whichever is earlier.

¶89

18 -

¶90

NC: 2025:KHC:30504 WP No. 25433 of 2016

¶91

HC-KAR

¶92

A perusal of the documents enclosed with the writ petition would show that the respondent No.5 has caused a final notice to the petitioners dated 13.10.2014 in response to which the petitioner No.2 had produced some material. However, there was no enquiry conducted by the respondent No.5 - Assistant Commissioner if he was the Enquiry Officer appointed by the respondent No.3. There is also no report submitted by the respondent No.5 to the said Commissioner. There is also no report submitted by the Commissioner to the State Government. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 is in clear violation of the procedure contemplated under Section 43 of the Act, 1997. Consequently, the same deserves to be set aside.

¶93

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed . The impugned order bearing No. PÀAE 03 ªÀÄÄD© 2014, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ dated 12.04.2016 passed by the respondent No.2 is quashed. The case is remitted back to the respondent No.3 who shall strictly comply with the procedure contemplated under Section 43 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 and take the issue to its logical end.

¶94

19 - NC: 2025:KHC:30504 WP No. 25433 of 2016

¶95

HC-KAR

¶96

In order to expedite the process, the petitioners are directed to appear before the respondent No.3 on 30.08.2025 at 3.00 p.m. and produce whatever materials they have to justify their objections.

¶97

In view of the disposal of this petition, I.A. No.1/2017 for vacating stay does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed off.

¶98

In view of the disposal of this petition, I.A. No.2/2016 filed by the impleading applicant to come on record as respondent No.7 in this writ petition is also disposed off reserving liberty to him to appear before the respondent No.3 and file appropriate application for impleadment in the proceedings.

¶99

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶100

sma/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

Shree Marikamba Devasthanagala Vyavasthapaka Committee v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shree Marikamba Devasthanagala Vyavasthapaka Committee 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.B.P. Pemmaiah Vs the Secretary

Lanco Infratec Limited Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri K J Narayanaswamy Vs the Managing Director

Amitabh Sinha Vs the Secretary

Mysore Sales International Limited Vs the Inspector General of Registration

M/S Sapthagiri Constructions Vs the Authorized Officer