2020 Supreme(Kar) 491

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
P.S. Dinesh Kumar, J.
Channakeshwavaswamy Temple Baalehole And Another - Appellants
Versus
Commissioner For Hindu Religious & Endowments And Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No.12406 of 2017 (GM-R/C) c/w Writ Petition No.1771 of 2018
Decided On : 20-05-2020

Headnote:

Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 - Section 29 - Violation of principles of natural justice - Claim of Hereditary Trusteeship – Jurisdiction - Facts of case are petitioners in both writ petitions claim to be Hereditary Trustees - They have placed reliance on communications issued from office of Maharaja of Mysore to substantiate their claim of Hereditary Trusteeship - By his order Deputy Commissioner appointed as Administrator of petitioners Temple until further order challenged said order in March - Deputy Commissioner passed another order merging Temple in question with Temple and directed its Executive Officer to administer Temple - Amended his writ petition and laid challenge to said order also - Challenged second order passed by Deputy Commissioner and a consequential order whereby Deputy Commissioner has permitted to participate in religious activities of Temple - Thus petitioners in both writ petitions are aggrieved by orders passed by Deputy Commissioner which have effect of taking over management of temple - Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that petitioners are not Hereditary Trustees - They are Managers - There are differences of opinion among them – Therefore they submitted a report proposing appointment of Deputy as Administrator - Deputy Commissioner being immediate controlling authority has taken appropriate action to ensure that religious functions including ensuing are smoothly carried out – Held, Management of a temple is taken over to remedy evil management must be handed over to person concerned immediately after evil stands remedied - Continuation thereafter would tantamount to usurpation of their proprietary rights or violation of fundamental rights guaranteed by Constitution in favor of persons deprived - Therefore taking over of management in such circumstances must be for a limited period – Thus such an expropriator order requires to be considered strictly as it infringes fundamental rights of citizens and would amount to divesting them of their legitimate rights to manage and administer temple for an indefinite period - Court are of view that impugned order is liable to be set aside for failure to prescribe duration for which it will be in force - Super-session of rights of administration cannot be of a permanent enduring nature - Its life has to be reasonably fixed so as to be co-terminus with removal of consequences of maladministration - Reason is that objective to take over management and administration is not removal and replacement of existing administration but to rectify and stump out consequences of maladministration - Power to regulate does not mean power to supersede administration for indefinite period - Regulate is defined as to direct to direct by rule or restriction to direct or manage according to certain standards to restrain or restrict - Word regulate is difficult to define as having any precise meaning - It is a word of broad import having a broad meaning and may be very comprehensive in scope – Thus it may mean to control or to subject to governing principles - Regulate has different set of meanings and must take its color from context in which it is used having regard to purpose and object of legislation - It is a settled proposition of law that what cannot be done directly is not permissible to be done obliquely meaning thereby whatever is prohibited by law to be done cannot legally be effected by an indirect and circuitous contrivance on principle of prohibitory per quod Deventer ad - An authority cannot be permitted to evade a law by shift or contrivance - Court would also like to bring on record that various instances whereby acts of mismanagement/ maladministration/misappropriation alleged to have been committed have been brought to court notice – Court have not gone into those issues since court have come to conclusion that power under 1959 Act for appointment of an Executive Officer could not have been exercised in absence of any prescription of circumstances/conditions in which such an appointment may be made - More so order of appointment of Executive Officer does not disclose as for what reasons and under what circumstances his appointment was necessitated - Even otherwise order in which no period of its operation is prescribed is not sustainable being ex facie arbitrary illegal and unjust – In case on hand Deputy Commissioner has ordered appointment of Administrator without recording any cogent reasons justifying appointment and to circumvent the embargo in Section 29 of 1997 Act - Said order was withdrawn and Temple has been merged with another Temple - This is impermissible - Writ petitions disposal of