1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 17.11.2006.

2. The case of the petitioners is, that they had made an application before the District Judge, Canara, under section 47 of the Bombay Public Trust Act on 19.2.1957 to appoint 2nd petitioner as trustee of the temple in exercise of power under section 47 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, (hereinafter referred to as “the Trust Act”). The learned District Judge by order dated 30.1.1960 appointed the 2nd petitioner’s father as Trustee of the temple. The father of the 2nd petitioner died on 3.11.2004. After his demise the 2nd petitioner has been performing the duties in the place of his father. In the meanwhile, the devotees of the 1st petitioner along with other trustees, acting under the Trust Act, filed writ petitions in W.P.No.33012/2003 to 33015/2003 challenging the validity of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Endowments Act’) and also for a direction to restore the temple in favour of the petitioners therein. It is stated that the Endowments Act was held constitutional by this court. However, the 1st respondent issued a notification appointing the 2nd respondent as the Executive Officer of the 1st petitioner – temple, as an additional charge. It is this order of the 1st respondent is called in question.

3. This court by order dated 12.12.2006 directed the parties to maintain status quo as on that date and the said interim order was continued. However, the State Government filed a Memo on 19.8.2008, producing a Notification dated 16.8.2008 inter alia stating that, by said notification the State Government has withdrawn the impugned notification dated 17.11.2006 with effect from 14.8.2008. This court accepting the notification, by order dated 19.8.2008 dismissed the writ petition as having become infructuous.

4. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal of the writ petition, petitioners herein filed an appeal in W.A.6083/2009. The division bench after hearing the parties, allowed the appeal by observing as under;

“31. We are of the clear opinion that in the present case that has not happened as the writ petition was got dismissed in a hurried manner by the memo filed by the learned Government Advocate before the Court and in the course of hearing of the case.

32. It is a salient requirement of law that a proper opportunity is always given to the order side before taking any adverse action. We notice that the State Government, by its conduct and by filing the memo was getting the writ petition filed by the petitioners dismissed and that too as having become infructuous. The conduct of the State Government is neither fair nor proper. This is not the conduct and method we expect from the highest governance in the State and the Executive organ of the State.

33. It is not necessary to go into the legality or the merits of the orders the learned Additional Advocate General has sought to defend the same contending that the action taken and the orders passed by the State Government is fair and proper.

34. We are of the view that the action taken by the State Government, requires proper scrutiny by this Court and it is also desirable that the matter is examined in an adequate manner and to the satisfaction of the petitioners and also as to whether the writ petition had become infructuous.”

And directed the Registry as under:

“We direct the Registry to re-list the writ petition before the Single Bench of this Court.”

It is in pursuance of this order passed by the division bench, the matter has been re-listed before this court.

5. Sri. Subramanya Jois, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that, when the Counsel for the petitioner was not present, the respondent-State is great hurry has filed a Memo dated 18.8.2008 and on 19.8.2008 got the writ petition dismissed. By notification dated 17.11.2006, the Assistant Commissioner was given additional charge of admi