Hindu temples/trustees of temples/archaks and others of Karnataka are before us aggrieved by the judgment of this Court dated 9-9-2005 passed in W.P. Nos. 31937 of 2003 (R.M. Sukumar Shetty, Managing Trustee, Sri Kollur Mookambika Temple, Kollur and Others v State by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Bangalore and Another!) and connected matters in these appeals.

2. It is unnecessary for us to refer to the facts in each one of the cases. The State Government in terms of the powers conferred on them has chosen to enact a law by name the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 and the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Rules, 2002 framed thereunder. The said Act in terms of the statement of objects and reasons was enacted in the light of a longstanding public demand to bring about a uniform law to provide for the regulation of all Charitable Endowments and Hindu Religious Institution in the State, which are now regulated under different enactments having local application in different parts of the State. The said Act was brought into force with effect from in terms of the notification. The Act is applicable to Hindu Religious Institution and Charitable Endowment but shall not apply to a mutt or temple attached thereto, to any Hindu Religious Institution or Charitable Endowment founded, organised, run or managed by Hindu Religious denomination.

3. There are several chapters providing for various contingencies in the matter. Aggrieved by the said Act, several temples/trustees/archaks etc., filed a bunch of writ petitions in this Court questioning the constitutional validity of the said Act. Some of the petitioners also challenged the notification issued under the Act with regard to the governing of the temples in terms of the notification. Matter was heard by a learned Single Judge of this Court. Detailed arguments were advanced. After hearing, the learned Single Judge in his order dated 9-9-2005 held that the Act is valid and constitutional. Learned Judge reserved liberty to the petitioners who are aggrieved by the inclusion in the notification to approach the authorities under the Act, if so advised. The learned Judge ruled that if any complaints are filed, the authorities are to hold enquiries with opportunity and thereafter pass orders in accordance with law. This order is challenged by the petitioners in these appeals.

4. Matter was heard on several days. Several learned Counsels appearing for the appellants argued the case from several angles of temple law. Constitutional principles were projected before us for the purpose of declaring the Act as unconstitutional in terms of the Constitution.

5. Sri A.G. Holla, learned Senior Counselled the arguments. He was supported by Sri S.P. Shankar, learned Senior Counsel Sri Padubidri Raghavendra Rao, learned Senior Counsel, Sri D.L.N. Rao, learned Senior Counsel, Sri Keshava Bhat, learned Counsel, Sri Phanindra, learned Counsel, Sri Krishna Bhat, learned Counsel, Sri Jalisatgi learned Counsel and others.

6. Sri Holla, learned Senior Counsel took us through the history of temple material on record to say that the learned Judge has committed a serious error in not considering the case property in terms of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He invites our attention to the inapplicability of this Act to Mutts, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhist the present act excludes them without 'any justification. According to him, this would amount to a hostile discrimination in terms of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He also took us through the judgment of the Supreme Court to say that uniform law was emphasised by the Apex Court and in the process of uniform law, a further dissection is made insofar as the Hindu Religious and Institutions and temples are concerned in the case on hand by the State. He took us through Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India to say that there is a violation of the rights guarant