1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for declaration that the provisions of the Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the Act 1997) are not applicable to Yediyur Siddalingeshwara Swamy Mutt and the Mutt at Kaggere, Kunigal. The petitioner is also assailing the order dated 15.12.2008 at Annexure-M and the notification dated 30.04.2003 at Annexure-J.

2. The petitioner contends to be the great Viraktha Swamiji and the founder of Viraktha Parampare which is a tradition among the Veerashaivas. Siddalingeshwara Swamy is stated to be a saint with large following of disciples. Several authoritative publications on the life and work of Siddalingeshwara Swamy is stated to be made. The Swamiji is stated to have made Yediyur/Kaggere as the centre of his activities and ultimately entered the ‘Jeevasamadhi’ at Yediyur Mutt and the ‘Gadduge’ is situate at Yediyur. The inscriptions in the Mutt premises is claimed as testimony to urge these contentions. It is further contended that there is no temple or idol of any deity in the premises. The pooja offered by the disciples is to the Samadhior Gadduge of Sri Siddalingeshwara Swamiji. The nature of activity carried on in that regard is stated with reference to the earlier activities and there being some disputes with regard to the successor during the year 1900. In that regard, an order dated 10.06.1904 was passed whereunder the management of Yediyur Mutt was directed to be assumed by the Muzrai Department to enable the Government to regulate its financial management, which according to the petitioner is only an arrangement to protect the property. The first respondent thereafter framed Sri Yediyur Siddalingeshwara Swamy Muzrai Institute (Management) Rules, 1967, under the Mysore Religious and Charitable Institutions Act, 1927. The petitioner contends that the Mutt does not come under the definition of a shrine or temple. Reference is also made to a suit in O.S.No.100/1970 (renumbered as O.S.39/2001) filed by Archaks claiming absolute right to carry on the pooja of Gadduge, which is pending consideration.

3. It is stated that the petitioner was taking interest in the affairs of the Mutt by attending important functions and also communicating with the officials. When this was the position, the Act 1997 was brought into force with effect from 01.04.2003 and the impugned notification under Section 23 of the Act 1997 was made. The said Act, according to the petitioner is not applicable to the Mutt. The petitioner made a detailed representation dated 05.01.2004 requesting to delete the institution from the notification. Though the petitioner was informed that the matter is under consideration, no further progress was made and as such, the petitioner again made representations dated 07.01.2006 and 14.05.2007. Another representation dated 13.01.2008 was submitted. In the said representations, all these issues were raised by the petitioner. The first respondent by the communication dated 15.12.2008 intimated the petitioner that the denotification would not be possible. The petitioner is therefore before this Court.

4. The respondents have filed their objection statement and have disputed the case of the petitioner. It is contended that though there is no idol of any kind in the premises and the disciples in fact offer pooja to the Samadhi or Gadduge, Gaddugeis also included in the definition of temple under Section 2(27) of the Act 1997. Hence, it is not a Mutt but it is a temple as defined in the Act. The Government order dated 01.06.1904 is relied to contend that there was mismanagement and misappropriation of income of the temple by the Archaks who were performing pooja in the temple which resulted in the said Government order and taking over of management of the temple. The said order itself has specified the institution as temple. With regard to the denotification of Gokarna Sri Mahabaleshwara Temple, it is stated that the said i