Judgment

R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. By an order dated 8.11.2006, the Government of Karnataka appointed the Assistant Commissioner, Haveri District as the Administrator of the Malathesh (Sri Mylara Linga) Temple, Devara Gudda, till the formation of a Managing Committee. The appellant along with one Guddanna Gowda claiming to be Panchas (Trustees) filed Writ Petition No.16158/2006 in the High Court of Karnataka challenging the said notification dated 8.11.2006. The third respondent herein got himself impleaded in the said writ petition, as a devotee of the temple. The said writ petition was allowed in part by a learned Single Judge, by order dated 22.12.2006 and the said notification dated 8.11.2006 was quashed, reserving liberty to the State to pass appropriate orders after affording an opportunity to the writ petitioners. The writ petitioners filed an appeal (Writ Appeal No.169/2007) at the Dharwad Circuit Bench challenging that part of the order reserving liberty to respondents 1 and 2 to pass fresh orders. By judgment dated 31.1.2009, a Division Bench of the High Court (V.Gopala Gowda and L.Narayana Swamy, JJ) dismissed the writ appeal.

3. The appellant filed a review petition (R.P.No.1513/2009) for review of the said order, at the Dharwad Circuit Bench. The said review petition was placed before a Division Bench consisting of K.Sreedhar Rao and Ravi Malimath, JJ., at the Dharwad Circuit Bench. The third respondent objected to the hearing of the review petition by the said Bench on the ground that the writ appeal was heard and disposed of by the Division Bench consisting of V.Gopala Gowda and L.Narayana Swamy, JJ. and the review petition should therefore be heard and decided by the same Bench. He also contended that the notification dated 29.12.2008 of the High Court notifying that the review petitions relating to judgments passed by a Division Bench or Single Bench in respect of Circuit Bench, Dharwad will be posted as per the roster existing in the Circuit Bench, Dharwad, was contrary to Rule 5 of the Karnataka High Court Rules, 1959.

4. A Division Bench consisting of K.Sreedhar Rao and Ravi Malimath, JJ. heard the said review petition and allowed it by judgment dated 17.12.2009 and directed that the appeal should be heard afresh for disposal in accordance with law. With reference to the objection of the third respondent that the learned Judges who disposed of the appeal alone should hear the review petition, it was held as follows :

“3. Rule 5 is not a rigid mandate. The exception to the rule is provided in the rule itself. In the case of death or non-availability of the judge, the review petition is permitted to be heard by the Bench other than the one, which passed the order. The experience has shown that for correcting trivial mistakes in the judgment, the review jurisdiction is invoked by the parties. In the scheme of sitting arrangement for the Circuit Benches, it is difficult to obtain the same combination to hear the review within a reasonable time. Therefore, in order to obviate the hardship to the litigants, the above notification is issued. Even on merits when a judgment or an order is to be reviewed, the similar difficulty of non-availability of the Bench, which passed the order within a reasonable time, is very much felt.

4. The exercise of power of allotment of subjects and cases is the prerogative of the Hon'ble Chief Justice.

5. Keeping in view the practical considerations the above notification is issued. Therefore the notification cannot be termed as arbitrary and illegal.”

5. The appellant thereafter filed a memo dated 25.3.2010 for listing the writ appeal (restored by order dated 17.12.2009) for fresh hearing. The said memo came up for orders before a Division Bench consisting of D.V. Shailendra Kumar and N.Ananda, JJ., at Dharwad Circuit Bench. After hearing the parties on the said memo, the said Division Bench passed the impugned order dated 23.4.2010 holding that the judgment dated