1. This appeal is by the aggrieved Writ Petitioners in W.P.No.17580/2006 which petition was short circuited by a overzealous government and its counsel, resulting in the following order by the learned Single Judge:

“The learned Government Advocate submitted that the order dated 12.08.2006 by virtue of which the impugned notification dated 17.11.2006 in this writ petition has been withdrawn. The notification dated 12.08.2006 has superceded the earlier notification. TYhere4fore, this writ petition does not survive for consideration.

The writ petition being infructuous, is accordingly dismissed.”

The appellants have questioned not only the legality of the ordr4 passed by the learned Single Judge but also the method and manner in which the order has been brought into existence.

2. Appeal has not only generated considerable debate and leading to heated arguments many a times as the impugned orders obtained by the State by recourse to sharp practices for getting the writ petition dismissed as having become infructuous.

3. Appellants had, by filing the Writ Petition questioned the legality of a Government Notification dated 17.11.2006 issued by the State Government through the Department of Revenue (Mujarai) copy produced at Annexure-A to the Writ Petition as under the said order the State Government had sought to appoint an incharge Executive Officer to the vacant post of the Executive Officer at Sri.Mahabaleshwara Temple, Gokurna, and had asked the Assistant Commissioner, Kumta, to hold additional charge of this post and to function as the Executive officer of the temple as the post had remained vacant until passing of fresh orders.

4. The first petitioner being Sri.Samstana Mahabaleshwara Devaru, a registered Trust under the Bombay Public Trust Act, represented by its Managing Trustee Sri.Balachandra Vigneshwara Dixit and the second petitioner being the very trustee, who have presented the writ petition contending interalia that the temple being one of the ancient temples situated in the coastal Karnataka region attracting thousands of devotees every day, that the temple was governed by the Bombay Public Trust Act; that the forefathers of the second petitioners had functioned as hereditary trustees of the Trust and the temple; that the father of the second petitioner had died on 03.11.2004 and at the time of his demise he was performing the duties as a Managing Trustee in his capacity as hereditary trustee; that the 2nd petitioner has continued to function in that capacity after the death of his father; that the State Government impleaded as 1st respondent in the writ petition had even recognized this position of the second petitioner’s father being the hereditary trustee and was functioning as Managing Trustee of the temple till his death on 03.11.2004; that in a writ petition that had been filed by the 1st petitioner before this Court in W.P.No.33012-15/2003 questioning the legality of the provisions of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for short) in the State Government had come up with an application seeking for permission to appoint an Administrator to the temple on the demise of the erstwhile Managing Trustee i.e., the father of the petitioner who9 died on 03.11.2004. While no orders had been passed on the application filed by the State Government, the 2nd petitioner had continued to discharge the functions of a Managing Trustee. The petitioners were taken by surprise by the issue of the impugned notification purporting to appoint the 2nd respondent-Assistant Commissioner of Kumta as the incharge Executive officer of the temple; that the notification is illegal, without jurisdiction and amounted to arbitrary interference with the rights of the petitioner, that it was in violation of the principles of natural justice, that the State Government nor the 2nd respondent had no right to interfere with the management of the temple nor had