Sri Narasimha Prasad M S Vs State of Karnataka

THE COMMISSIONER RELIGIOUS CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS COMMISSION AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY 4^TH FLOOR, SREE MINTO ANJAYNAYASWAMY BHAVANA ALUR VANKAT RAO ROAD CHAMRAJPET

¶24

2 -

¶25

NC: 2026:KHC:1619 WP No. 1842 of 2023 C/W WP No. 6469 of 2023

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

BENGALURU - 560 018.

¶28

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA - 571 401.

¶29

SRI. SATHANARAYANA SON OF THELATE KRISHNA BHAT AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

¶30

SRI. KRISHNA PRASAD M.S. SON OF SATHAYANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

¶31

RESPONDENT NOS. 4 & 5 MAREHALLI VILLAGE MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 430.

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. H.V. PRAVEEN GOWDA,ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5)

¶34

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 05.01.2023 IN CASE NO.ADM7/AP13/2022.23(E-854184) PASSED BY THE R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-K.

¶35

IN WP NO. 6469/2023

¶36

BETWEEN:

¶37

SRI SATHYANARAYANA S/O LT KRISHNA BHAT AGED ABOUT 63 YERS

¶38

SRI KRISHNA PRASAD S/O SATHYANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

¶39

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:1619 WP No. 1842 of 2023 C/W WP No. 6469 of 2023

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

BOTH R/AT MAREHALLI VILLAGE MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 430.

¶42

...PETITIONERS

¶43

(BY SRI. H.V. PRAVEEN GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶44

AND:

¶45

THE COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA A V R ROAD, CHAMARAJAPET BENGALURU - 560 018.

¶46

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA - 571 423.

¶47

SRI NARASIMHA PRASAD M S S/O M S SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS RA/T NO 1384, 4^TH CROSS KRISHNAMURTHYPURAM MYSORE - 570 008.

¶48

...RESPONDENTS

¶49

(BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA., AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. H.V. PRAVEEN GOWDA.,ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5)

¶50

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 05.01.2023 IN CASE NO.ADM7/AP13/2022-23, PASSED BY THE R1 VIDE ANNEXURE -K.

¶51

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶52

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:1619 WP No. 1842 of 2023 C/W WP No. 6469 of 2023

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

ORAL ORDER

¶55

Petitioners in both petitions in W.P.Nos.1842/2023 and 6469/2023 are before this Court being aggrieved by the Order dated 05.01.2023 (as per Annexure-K in W.P.No.1842/2023 and Annexure-A in W.P.No.6469/2023 respectively) in terms of which respondent No.2Commissioner, Religious Charitable Endowments Commission and Appellant Authority has set aside the earlier Order dated 28.07.2022 passed by the respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner with a direction to appoint the archakas to Sree Lakshminarshimaswamy Temple, Marehalli Village, Malavalli Taluk, Mandya District in terms of Rule 12 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Rules, 2002.

¶56

Issue pertains to appointment of Archakas in respect of Sree Lakshminarshimaswamy Temple, Marehalli Village, Malavalli Taluk, Mandya District. That the respondent No.3Deputy Commissioner as per Official Memorandum at Annexure-C had appointed the petitioner herein and respondent No.5 as the Archakas of the aforesaid temple to

¶57

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:1619 WP No. 1842 of 2023 C/W WP No. 6469 of 2023

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

discharge their duties and functions on rotational basis. Being aggrieved by the said order, respondent Nos.4 and 5 in W.P.No.1842/2023 who are the petitioners in W.P.No.6469/2023 had preferred an appeal before the respondent No.2-Commissioner, in Appeal

¶60

No.ADM7/AP13/2022-23, who has passed the impugned order dated 05.01.2023 as noted above.

¶61

Learned counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions taking this Court through the records submit in unison that the respondent No.2-Commissioner has committed error and illegality in setting aside the order passed by the respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner on the premise of non production of records either by the respondent Nos.4 and 5 or the petitioner herein with regard to their claim of they being the hereditary archakas, which reasoning runs contrary to the materials produced by the respondent-State before this Court. He further submits that the respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner on earlier occasion while passing the Order as per Annexure-C had taken into consideration the recommendation made by the

¶62

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:1619 WP No. 1842 of 2023 C/W WP No. 6469 of 2023

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

Tahsildar, regarding petitioner and respondent Nos.4 and 5 being the hereditary Archakas and they having been discharging the same for more than four generations. He submits that the material despite being made available before the respondent No.2-Commissioner, he has not appreciated the same, resulting in an illegal order being passed. He further submits that now, there is an amicable resolution of the issue between the petitioner as well as the respondent Nos.4 and 5, the order passed by the respondent No.2-Commissioner as per Annexure-K be set-aside.

¶65

Learned AGA, bringing to notice of this Court the statement of objection filed on 28.08.2025, more particularly at paragraph No.5 thereof, submits that the details of the ancestors of the present petitioners who were the archakas have been reflected. She submits that the respondent No.2Commissioner would reconsider the matter and pass appropriate orders given sometime in this regard.

¶66

Heard and perused the records.

¶67

7 -

¶68

NC: 2026:KHC:1619 WP No. 1842 of 2023 C/W WP No. 6469 of 2023

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

Petitioners in both the petitions claim to be the hereditary archakas of the aforesaid religious institution. The respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner, had purportedly upon the recommendation made by Tahsildar had passed the order appointing petitioners in both the petitions to be the archakas of the aforesaid temple on rotational basis. The said order was challenged by respondent Nos.4 and 5 in W.P.No.1842/2023 who are the petitioners in W.P.No.6469/2023 before respondent No.2-Commissioner, who while allowing the said appeal at unnumbered paragraph of page No.5 of his order has observed as under:

¶71

"ಅ�ೕಲು�ಾರ�ಾಗ�ೇ, 2�ೇ ಪ��ಾ�ಯವ�ಾಗ�ೕ ಮಂಡ� ��ೆ�, ಮಳವ�� ಾಲೂ�ಕು, #ಾ�ೇಹ�� %ಾ�ಮದ '�ೕ ಲ()ೕನರ+ಂಹ,ಾ-. �ೇ�ಾಲಯದ�� ವಂಶ0ಾರಂಪಯ1�ಾ2 3ರಂತರ�ಾ2, ¥ÀÆeÁ5ಾಯ1ಗಳನು6 3ವ17+ದ ಬ%ೆ9 ಸಮಥ13ೕಯ �ಾಖ�ೆಗಳನು6 =ಾಜರುಪ?+ರುವ@�ಲ�. ಆದುದBಂದ/02�ೇ ಅ�ೕಲು�ಾರರನು6 =ಾಗೂ 2�ೇ ಪ��ಾ�ಯವರನು6 ಒಂದ�ೇ ಪ��ಾ�ಯವರು ಅನುವಂ'ಕ ಅಚ1ಕ�ೆಂದು ಪBಗE+, ಸರ� ಅಚ1ಕರ�ಾ62 �ೇ.+ರುವ@ದು ಸಮಂಜಸ�ಾ2ರುವ@�ಲ�. ಆದFBಂದ ಒಂದ�ೇ ಪ��ಾ�ಯವರ ಪ�'6ತ ಆ�ೇಶವ@ ಊ�1ತ�ಾಗುವ@�ಲ�. ಆದ5ಾರಣ, ಪ�'6ತ ಆ�ೇಶವನು6 ರದುFಪ?+, ಪ�'6ತ �ೇ�ಾಲಯ5ೆI 3ಯಮ 12 ರ ಅ?ಯ�� =ೊಸ�ಾ2 ಅಚ1ಕರನು6 �ೇಮಕ #ಾಡJೇ5ಾ2ರುತK�ೆ.''

¶72

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:1619 WP No. 1842 of 2023 C/W WP No. 6469 of 2023

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

Having held as above, the respondent No.2Commissioner has proceeded to set-aside the order dated 28.07.2022 passed by the respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner produced at Annexure-C and has further directed to initiate steps for appointment of archakas in terms of Rule 12 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Rules.

¶75

After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusal of the records, more particularly contents of paragraph No.5 of the statement of objection filed by the respondent-State, it is apparent that there was sufficient material available with regard to the claim of the petitioners in both the petitions being the hereditary archakas of the subject temple.

¶76

Section 9 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 provides for appointment of archakas and temple servants. In terms of proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 9, in the case of hereditary post, if there is no dispute among the members of

¶77

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:1619 WP No. 1842 of 2023 C/W WP No. 6469 of 2023

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

the family, the next in line of succession shall be appointed with the prior approval of the Commissioner. The second proviso, further provided that in case where no legal heir of the hereditary post are available, Committee of Management may appoint any person as provided under Sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Act.

¶80

In instant case, it is now submitted in unison that the petitioners in both the petitions are the hereditary archakas of the subject temple, which fact, despite there being sufficient material on record, has not been considered by the respondent No.2-Commissioner. The reasoning of the respondent No.2-Commissioner in the impugned order as extracted herein above is therefore cannot be sustained.

¶81

However, in the light of the statement of objection now filed by the respondent-State referred to above, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the order at Annexure-K and remit the matter to the respondent No.2-Commissioner to reconsider the same and pass appropriate orders in terms

¶82

10 -

¶83

NC: 2026:KHC:1619 WP No. 1842 of 2023 C/W WP No. 6469 of 2023

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

of section 9 of the Act taking into consideration the material now placed on record.

¶86

Such order shall be passed within a period of 60

¶87

days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Petitioner as well as respondent Nos.4 and 5 shall be heard in person and they are also permitted to produce any additional documents, if required in the matter.

¶88

With the above observation, writ petitions are

¶89

disposed of .

¶90

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶91

RL

¶92

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Sri Narasimha Prasad M S v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Narasimha Prasad M S 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

M R Balakrishna Vs the Union of India

Smt Bylamma Dead by Lrs Vs Sri Venkatesh

Basavaraju S/O Basavaiah Vs Sarojamma

Lalaji R Mendon Vs the Commissioner for Hindu Religious

T N Santhosh Kumar Vs Union of India

Bremels Rubber Industries Private Limited Vs Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation