Sri Vittal Shetty Vs State of Karnataka

AGED 69 YEARS S/O LATE H RAMANNA HEGDE PERMANENT ADDRESS AT HEGGUNJE HOSA MANE GOWRI THOTHA, MANDARTHI BRAHMAVARA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT- 576223 PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.25/3-5, G-2 RATHOD LANDMARK APARTMENT INDUSTRIAL SUBURB, YASWANTHAPURA BANGALORE - 560022.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. GANAPATHI BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY AND COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:12668 WP No. 23310 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

KARNATAKA RAJYA DHARMIKA PARISHATH

¶20

REPRESENTED BY ITS

¶21

MEMBER SECRETARY AND COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT BENGALURU-560 018.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. ADITYA DIWAKARA, AGA)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R2 TO CONCLUDE THE PROCEEDINGS IN CASE NO. RDP TRI 2/20202021 VIDE ANNEXURE-B, EXPEDITIOUSLY AND WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT TO BE FIXED BY THIS HONORABLE COURT.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Captioned petition is filed seeking a direction against

¶29

respondent No.2 to conclude the proceedings in case No.RDP TRI 2/2020-2021.

¶30

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

¶31

and learned AGA appearing for respondents. Perused the records.

¶32

The case on hand discloses inaction and laxity

¶33

on the part of respondent No.2 in not concluding the

¶34

3 -

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:12668 WP No. 23310 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

proceedings within a reasonable time. This Court, while considering the earlier round of litigation in MFA No.4871/2018, by order dated 01.03.2019, had set aside the order passed by respondent No.2 and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration. The remand was not an open-ended exercise but was accompanied by specific directions requiring respondent No.2 to reconsider the matter afresh and conclude the proceedings in accordance with law. The intention of this Court while remitting the matter was to ensure that the dispute is adjudicated expeditiously by the competent authority.

¶38

This Court, therefore, deems it appropriate to

¶39

extract the operative portion of the order passed in MFA No.4871/2018, which reads as under:

¶40

"i. The appeal is allowed in part setting aside the impugned order dated 26.03.2018 in No.RDP/TRI/17/2012/13 on the file of the Rajya Dharmika Parishat, and the matter is remanded back to the Rajya Dharmika Parishat for fresh reconsideration;

¶41

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:12668 WP No. 23310 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

ii. The Appellants and the private respondents viz., respondents No.3 to 8 shall appear before the Rajya Dharmika Parshit without further notice on 29.3.2019.

¶44

iii. The Rajya Dharmika Parishat shall conclude such proceedings as expeditiously as possible after notifying the proceedings on the Notice Board of Sri Mandarthi Durgaparmeshwari Temple, its own office, the Taluk office and the Assistant Commissioner's office. iv. The appellants No.5 and 6 and respondents No.3, 4 and 5 shall function as Temporary Trustees assisting the Executing Officer appointed for the management of the Sri Mandarthi Durgaparmeshwari Temple for a tenure that shall be co-extensive with the pendency of the proceedings before the Rajya Dharmika Parishat without any of them claiming any right howsoever for having functioned as Temporary Trustees; and if an application is made by respondents No. 6, 7 and 8 for their incorporation into such temporary trusteeship.

¶45

v. No costs."

¶46

On a careful examination of the aforesaid directions issued

¶47

by this Court, it is evident that the matter was remitted as early as in the year 2019 with a clear expectation that respondent No.2 would conclude the proceedings expeditiously. However, despite lapse of several years

¶48

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:12668 WP No. 23310 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

from the date of remand, respondent No.2 has failed to bring the proceedings to a logical conclusion. Such prolonged inaction defeats the very purpose of the remand order and results in unnecessary prolongation of the dispute concerning the administration of the temple. This Court is therefore of the view that the conduct of respondent No.2 clearly reflects administrative laxity in not adhering to the spirit and intent of the directions issued by this Court. Consequently, the petitioner, who has approached this Court seeking appropriate directions for expeditious disposal of the proceedings, cannot be left remediless and is justified in invoking the jurisdiction of this Court for issuance of necessary directions.

¶51