Vasanthi @ Vasantha Laxmi Vs State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:30520 WP No. 35009 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 35009 OF 2024 (GM-R/C)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

VASANTHI @ VASANTHA LAXMI D/O LATE ANANTHESHWARA BHAT AGED BOUT 64 YEARS R/AT 'SHREE DEVEE' ANILAKODI, SEDIYAPU, BANNUR VILLAGE AND POST, PUTTUR, D.K.574 203

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. KESHAVA BHAT A., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF

¶14

HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001

¶15

THE RAJYA DHARMIKA PARISHAD DEPARTMENT OF HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS 4^TH FLOOR, MINTOSHREE ANJANEYA BHAVAN ALLUR VENKATARAO ROAD CHAMRAJPET BANGALORE-560 018

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:30520 WP No. 35009 of 2024

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE RAJYA DHARMIKA PARISHAD DEPARTMENT OF HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS 4^TH FLOOR, MINTOSHREE ANJANEYA BHAVAN - ALLUR VENKATARAO ROAD CHAMRAJPET BANGALORE-560 018

¶20

SHREE MAHALINGESHWARA TEMPLE PUTTUR TOWN PUTTUR TALUK PUTTUR, D K 574 203 REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER

¶21

THE PRADHANA ARCHAK/CHIEF PRIEST SRI MAHALINGESHWARA TEMPLE PUTTUR TOWN PUTTUR, D.K - 574 203

¶22

B. ISHWAR NAIKA AGED MAJOR S/O NARNU NAIKA R/AT NO.22/2/15/36B 2^ND CROSS ROAD, KHB COLONY, RAILWAY ROAD, SAMETADKAR, DARBE POST, PUTTUR TALUK D.K. DISTRICT-574 203

¶23

KRISHNAVENI W/O T.VISHWANATHA NAYAK AGED MAJOR R/AT NO.5-380 MOHAN'S COMPOUND

¶24

3 -

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:30520 WP No. 35009 of 2024

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

DHUMAVATHI ROAD, MANJALAPADAPU, KABAKA VILLAGE AND POST NEHARU NAGAR, PUTTUR TALUK D.K.DISTRICT-574 203

¶28

NALINI P SHETTY AGED MAJOR W/O LATE PUSHPARAJ SHETTY R/AT NO.3-154/22-1-510-908 JANANI HOUSE, SAMETADKA PUTTUR TALUK D.K.DISTRICT-574 203

¶29

ISHWARA BHAT AGED MAJOR S/O LATE KESHAVA BHAT P R/AT PANJIGUDDE HOUSE PADNOORU VILLAGE AND POST PUTTUR TALUK D K DISTRICT - 574 203

¶30

DINESH KULAL P.V. AGED MAJOR S/O P.VENKAPPA R/AT NO.2-2, CHAITRA HOUSE MURAGOWDA, BEHIND SAMUDAYA BHAVAN KABAKA, PUTTUR TALUK D.K.DISTRICT-574 203.

¶31

MAHABALA RAI AGED MAJOR S/O KITTANNA RAI R/AT SHIVAPRASADA VOLATHADAKA HOUSE ARYAPU RURAL, ARYAPUR

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:30520 WP No. 35009 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

D.K.DISTRICT-574 203

¶36

SUBHASH RAI AGED MAJOR S/O LATE RAMAMOHAN RAI R/AT ALVA'S COMPOUND KALLIMOORU HOUSE PUTTUR KASABA VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK D.K.DISTRICT-574 203

¶37

VINAYA KUMAR B AGED MAJOR S/O NARAYANA POOJARY R/AT NO.2-269, MUGERADKA HOUSE NARIMOGARU VILLAGE AND POST PUTTUR TALUK

¶38

D.K.DISTRICT-574 203

¶39

… RESPONDENTS

¶40

(BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI G. BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R9; R4 TO R13 ARE SERVED)

¶41

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION NO. HRICE-ADMOADM8/209/2024/E1500319 ANNEXURE-A DTD. 17.12.2024 FROM THE FILE OF THE R-3 AND ON PERUSAL OF THE SAME AND ETC.

¶42

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

¶43

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶44

5 -

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:30520 WP No. 35009 of 2024

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

ORAL ORDER

¶48

The petitioner has impugned the constitution of

¶49

the Management Committee for the Shree

¶50

Mahalingeshwara Temple, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada [ the fourth respondent, which is hereafter referred to as ‘the Temple’ ], and this Committee is constituted by the impugned Notification dated 17.12.2024[Annexure-A]. On 19.12.2024, this Court has granted interim order staying the operation of the impugned Notification dated 17.12.2024[ therefore the constitution of the Committee], but this Court has observed that the order will be in force if the notification is not given effect to.

¶51

However, on 05.03.2025, this Court

¶52

has permitted the Committee to function subject to the result of the petition. The learned counsel for ninth respondent [ a member of the Committee ] has placed on record that the impugned notification is

¶53

6 -

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:30520 WP No. 35009 of 2024

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

given effect on 18.12.2024. Consequentially, the petitioner has filed an application to restrain the Committee so constituted from functioning asserting that the Resolution dated 18.12.2024 is drawn hurriedly. Mr. A. Keshava Bhat, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Navya Shekhar, the learned Additional Government Advocate for first to third respondents,and Mr. G. Balakrishna Shastry, the learned for the ninth respondent, who is a member of the Committee and the only contesting private respondent, are heard for disposal of the petition.

¶57

Mr. A. Keshava Bhat contends that the

¶58

Rajya Dharmika Parishad should have constituted the Committee in exercise of its power under Section 25 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 [for short, 'the Act' ], but the Chairman of the Rajya Dharmika Parishad has issued the impugned notification constituting the Committee. The learned counsel

¶59

7 -

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC:30520 WP No. 35009 of 2024

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

emphasizes that the Rajya Dharmika Parishad is not conferred with the power to delegate the jurisdiction to constitute the Committee, and in the absence of delegation, the Chairman of the Rajya Dharmika Parishad could not have issued the impugned Notification dated 17.12.2024.

¶63

Mr. A. Keshava Bhat, on the question of Rajya Dharmika Parishad delegating the power to constitute the Committee in the Chairman, invites this Court's attention to the contents of the Notification dated 17.12.2024, and it is seen from this Notification that there is a reference to the resolution of Rajya Dharmika Parishad on 03.01.2024 to delegate the power to constitute the Committee to the Chairman and this is not mentioned once but it is repeatedly mentioned in the course of the Notification.

¶64

8 -

¶65

NC: 2025:KHC:30520 WP No. 35009 of 2024

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

Mr. G. Balakrishna Shastry and Ms.

¶68

Navya Shekhar contend that though there is a reference to the delegation, the decision is nevertheless by the Rajya Dharmika Parishad as is mentioned in paragraph-4 of the Notification dated 17.12.2024, and the learned counsel and the Additional Government Advocate do not contest the proposition that in the absence of power to delegate under Section 25 of the Act, there could not have been delegation in the Chairman to constitute the Committee. However, Mr. G. Balakrishna Shastry submits that even if this Court intervenes on the ground that the Chairman has constituted the Committee in exercise of a power that is not delegated and that could not be delegated, this Court must only restore the applications filed pursuant to the publication dated 16.07.2024 based on the Verification Reports filed by the jurisdictional Police on the applications.

¶69

9 -

¶70

NC: 2025:KHC:30520 WP No. 35009 of 2024

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

Mr. G. Balakrishna Shastry contends that

¶73

this Court should not restore the proceedings to any stage prior to the date of publication because the petitioner is not an applicant and is essentially aggrieved because of a personal dispute with the ninth respondent. Ms. Navya Shekhar makes a valiant effort for an opportunity [ by an adjournment ] to bring on record further material to substantiate the case that the decision is not by the Commissioner but by the Rajya Dharmika Parishad.

¶74

These rival submissions are considered,

¶75

In the light of the same, the following two questions:

¶76

[A] Whether this Court, from the material now available on record, could opine that the decision to constitute the Committee is by the Rajya Dharmika Parishad,

¶77

[B] If the answer to the afore question is in the negative, whether the proceedings must be restored to any

¶78

10 -

¶79

NC: 2025:KHC:30520 WP No. 35009 of 2024

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

stage prior to the date of publication inviting applications from those willing to be part of the publication, i.e. 16.07.2024.

¶82

It is not in dispute that under Section 25 of the Act, there is no power in the Rajya Dharmika Parishad to delegate, and if the power to delegate is not conferred under the statute, it must be established beyond all dispute that the decision is by the Rajya Dharmika Parishad and not by its Chairman as a delegate. Except for the assertion that the decision is by the Rajya Dharmika Parishad, no material is brought on record, and this Court must observe that this is despite multiple opportunities. Therefore, the question whether the Rajya Dharmika Parishad has exercised the power, and not the Chairman, to issue the impugned Notification must be answered from the contents of this Notification.

¶83

11 -

¶84

NC: 2025:KHC:30520 WP No. 35009 of 2024

¶85

HC-KAR

¶86

In the impugned Notification dated

¶87

17.12.2024 there is a reference to the Resolution

¶88

dated 03.01.2024, and this reference reads that the Rajya Dharmika Parishad has authorized the Chairman to constitute the Committee¹ . Further, the publication dated 16.07.2024 [Annexure-C] issued by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Department [the third respondent] also refers to this Resolution dated 03.01.2024. Furthermore, these are repeated references to the Resolution dated 03.01.2024 in the publication dated 16.07.2024[ which is issued inviting applications ] and the impugned Notification dated 17.12.2024 mentioning the Chairman. This Court must observe that there is also reference to the Rajya Dharmika Parishad's proceedings on 07.03.2024 and

¶89

1 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 03.01.2024 gÀAzÀÄ £ÀqÉzÀ 4£ÉÃ gÁdå zsÁ«ÄðPÀ ¥ÀjµÀwÛ£À 2£ÉÃ ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ ¤tðAiÀÄzÀ «µÀAiÀÄ ¸ÀÆa ¸ÀASÉå (5)gÀ°è zsÁ«ÄðPÀ zÀwÛ E¯ÁSÁ ªÁå¦ÛUÉÆ¼À¥ÀqÀÄªÀ ¥ÀæªÀUÀð 'J' C¢ü¸ÀÆavÀ ¸ÀA¸ÉÀÜUÀ½UÉ ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥À£Á ¸À«ÄwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß gÀa¸ÀÄªÀ C¢üPÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß CzsÀåPÀëjUÉ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä ¸ÀªÁð£ÀÄªÀÄvÀ¢AzÀ wÃªÀiÁð¤¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¶90

12 -

¶91

NC: 2025:KHC:30520 WP No. 35009 of 2024

¶92

HC-KAR

¶93

24.06.2024, but the details thereof are not part of the

¶94

record.

¶95

This Court, in the afore circumstances, must opine that the decision to constitute the Committee is not by the Rajya Dharmika Parishad and is by its Chairman. As such, this Court answers the first question for consideration accordingly. Insofar as the second question, it would be material to observe that the petitioner is not an applicant, and that if the petitioner has not applied in response to the publication dated 16.07.2024, the application submitted pursuant to such publication must be examined by the Rajya Dharmika Parishad based on the reports that are received from the jurisdictional Police on 06.12.2024. The second question is answered accordingly.

¶96

The next aspect for consideration is about the arrangement that must be for the management of the Temple until the Rajya Dharmika Parishad

¶97

13 -

¶98

NC: 2025:KHC:30520 WP No. 35009 of 2024

¶99

HC-KAR

¶100

processes the applications and decides on the constitution of the Committee. The ninth respondent contends that the funds are allocated for development of the Temple, subject to utilization of the funds within a certain timeline. This Court, because of these submissions and the fact that the petitioner is not even an applicant, is of the view that the current Managing Committee must continue to function until the Rajya Dharmika Parishad reconstitutes the Committee, and the Rajya Dharmika Parishad must constitute a Committee within a period of eight [8] weeks. In the light of the afore, the following:

¶101

ORDER

¶102

The petition is allowed in part and

¶103

the impugned order dated 17.12.2024 as per Annexure-A is quashed, but restoring due consideration of the applications received pursuant to the publication dated 16.07.2024 by the Rajya Dharmika

¶104

14 -

¶105

NC: 2025:KHC:30520 WP No. 35009 of 2024

¶106

HC-KAR

¶107

Parishad, in the light of the reports already filed and constitute the Committee, within eight [8] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶108

SD/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶109

VGR

Vasanthi @ Vasantha Laxmi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vasanthi @ Vasantha Laxmi 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

Sudha Vs State of Karnataka

Canara Bank Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Suraksha Properties Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S. Ncdex E Markets Limited (Neml) Vs Canara Bank

Farzu Vs the State of Karnataka

Lokesha K N Vs the District Officer