Sri Thopinathimmappa Kalyana Mandira Seva Trust (R) Vs State of Karnataka

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:15778 WP No. 1066 of 2026

¶2

1 -

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 1066 OF 2026 (GM-R/C)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI THOPINATHIMMAPPA KALYANA MANDIRA SEVA TRUST (R) A REGISTERED TRUST REP BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY SRI. T. RAVINDRA S/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA, AGED 62 YEARS, R/AT ABALAVADI VILLAGE, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT- 571425

¶9

&PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. NITISH K.N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K V NARASIMHAN., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (MUZRAI), VIDHANA SOUDA, BENGALURU- 560001

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT, CHAMRAJPET, BANGALORE- 560018

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA- 571403

¶16

TAHSILDAR MADDUR TALUK,

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:15778 WP No. 1066 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

MANDYA DISTRICT- 571428

¶21

&RESPONDENTS

¶22

KUMAR .T S/O THIMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶23

M. SHIVANANJAIAH S/O MADDERA THIMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

¶24

AMASE THIMMAIAH S/O LATE KARIYAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS

¶25

KUMAR A.C. S/O LATE CHIKKANANJAIAH.C., AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶26

ALL R/O ABALAVADI VILLAGE, TALUK MADDUR, DISTRICT-MANDYA, PINCODE-571425.

¶27

& IMPLEADING APPLICANTS

¶28

(BY SRI. K.P. YOGANNA., AGA FOR RESPONDENTS; SRI. SOMASHEKHAR KASHIMATH., ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANTS ON IA 2/26)

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS AT ANNX-X, X1, X2, X3 DTD 03.10.2023 AND THE REPRESENTATION AT ANNX-Z AND Z1 DTD 21.10.2024 AND ANNX-Z2 DTD 31.12.2025 AND DE-NOTIFY SRI. VENKATARAMANA SWAMY (THOPINA THIMMAPPA) TEMPLE, SITUATED AT ABALAVADI VILLAGE, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT TEMPLE FROM THE NOTIFICATION AT ANNX-T ISSUED BY THE R-1 DT 29.09.2012 BEARING NO. RD 87 MU.AA.BI.2012 AND VEST ITS ADMINISTRATION IN THE PETITIONER, WITHIN A TIME FRAME AND ETC.

¶30

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

¶31

3 -

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:15778 WP No. 1066 of 2026

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

The captioned petition is filed seeking a mandamus

¶37

to consider the petitioner's representations at Annexures-X, X1, X2, X3 dated 03.10.2023 and also subsequent representations dated 21.10.2024 at Annexures-Z, Z1 as also representation dated 31.12.2025 at Annexure-Z2 and de-notify Sri.Venkataramana Swamy Temple situated at Abalavadi Village, Maddur Taluk, Mandya District issued by respondent No.1 dated

¶38

29.09.2012.

¶39

Facts leading to the case are as follows:

¶40

The facts, in brief, leading to the present petition are that the petitioner claims to have constituted a private trust in respect of Sri Venkataramana Swamy Temple and asserts certain rights of management over the said institution. It is the specific case of the petitioner that representations have been submitted to the competent authorities seeking

¶41

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:15778 WP No. 1066 of 2026

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

de-notification of the temple from the list of notified religious institutions. However, it is not in dispute that the subject temple was notified as a public temple under Section 23 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997, by a notification issued in the year 2012, which continues to remain in force. Being aggrieved by the inaction of the authorities in considering the said representations, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider and act upon the request for de-notification.

¶44

Once a religious institution is notified under Section 23 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 (for short, <the Act=), such notification attains statutory character and continues to hold the field unless it is set aside by a competent forum in accordance with law. This Court is of the considered view that the legal effect of a notification issued under Section 23 cannot be nullified, altered, or

¶45

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:15778 WP No. 1066 of 2026

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

rendered otiose merely on the basis of representations submitted by private parties seeking de-notification. Any grievance as against such notification necessarily requires a substantive challenge to the very notification in proceedings known to law.

¶48

In the present case, the petitioner asserts that a private trust has been constituted and, on that premise, representations have been submitted seeking denotification of Sri Venkataramana Swamy Temple from the list of notified institutions. However, this Court is unable to accept the said contention. So long as the notification issued under Section 23 of the Act notifying the subject temple as a public temple remains in force, the petitioner cannot, as a matter of right, seek its de-notification by way of representations. The statutory declaration of the institution as a public temple cannot be circumvented or indirectly assailed through such representations without directly challenging the notification itself.

¶49

6 -

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:15778 WP No. 1066 of 2026

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

It is also not in dispute that Sri Venkataramana

¶53

Swamy Temple stood notified as a public temple as early as in the year 2012. The said notification has attained finality, inasmuch as the same has not been called in question before any competent forum. In the absence of a challenge to the notification in a manner known to law, the petitioner cannot maintain the present writ petition seeking a direction to consider representations for denotification. Entertaining such a plea would amount to permitting an indirect challenge to a statutory notification, which is impermissible in law.

¶54

Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the captioned writ petition is devoid of merit and is not maintainable. The same stands dismissed.

¶55

However, it is made clear that this order shall not come in the way of the petitioner, if so advised, in challenging the notification issued in the year 2012 notifying the temple as a public temple, before the

¶56