IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
PRASANNA B.VARALE, M.G.S. KAMAL, JJ.
K.S. Naveen, S/o. K.R. Shivaprakash – Appellant
Versus
The Chief Secretary, Government Of Karnataka and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Appeal No.739 Of 2023 (GM-R/C) C/W Writ Appeal No.665 Of 2023 (GM-R/C), Writ Appeal No.675 Of 2023 (GM-R/C), Writ Appeal No.738 Of 2023 (GM-R/C), Writ Appeal No. 785 Of 2023 (GM-R/C), Writ Appeal No. 1047 Of 2023 (GM-R/C) And Writ Appeal No.846 Of 2023 (GM-R/C)
Decided On : 27-09-2023
Societies Registration Act, 1960 - The Vidyapeeta, its institutions, and assets are governed by the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1960. The Act provides for the registration, administration, and management of societies in India. The Vidyapeeta is a self-contained institution governed by the Act, and therefore, the impugned Government Order and the directions issued by the Single Judge were rendered moot.
Fact of the Case:
The impugned Government Order appointed an administrator for a religious institution and its affiliated educational institutions due to criminal cases against the pontiff. The writ petitions challenged the order on the grounds of violation of fundamental rights and lack of authority of law. The Single Judge quashed the order, citing interference with religious and proprietary rights. The Single Judge also referred to the Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 and Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appeals were filed against this order. The State Government subsequently withdrew the impugned order. The Court considered the Societies Registration Act, 1960 and the rules and regulations of the Vidyapeeta, and concluded that the Vidyapeeta is a self-contained institution governed by the Societies Registration Act. The Court held that the impugned order and the directions issued by the Single Judge were rendered moot. The Court also noted the constitution of an overseeing committee and the appointment of a prabhavi peetadhipathi for the math. The Court appointed an additional member to the overseeing committee with decision-making powers until a President is appointed in accordance with the Vidyapeeta's rules and regulations. The Court directed the District and Principal Judge to continue overseeing the administration and management of the math and Vidyapeeta until the appointment of a President.
Finding of the Court:
The Court considered the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1960 and the rules and regulations of the Vidyapeeta to determine the governance of the institution. The Court concluded that the Vidyapeeta is a self-contained institution governed by the Societies Registration Act, and therefore, the impugned order and the directions issued by the Single Judge were rendered moot. The Court also appointed an additional member to the overseeing committee until a President is appointed in accordance with the Vidyapeeta's rules and regulations.
Ratio Decidendi: The impugned Government Order and the directions issued by the Single Judge were rendered moot as the Vidyapeeta is a self-contained institution governed by the Societies Registration Act, 1960. The Court appointed an additional member to the overseeing committee until a President is appointed in accordance with the Vidyapeeta's rules and regulations.
Result: The writ appeals were disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
These batch of appeals arise out of a common order dated 22.05.2023 passed in W.P.No.25316/2022 c/w W.P.No.25318/2022 by which learned Single Judge of this Court while quashing the impugned Government Order dated 13.12.2022, whereby respondent No.6-Mr.P.S.Vastrad, a retired I.A.S Officer had been appointed as the administrator of Shree Jagadguru Murugharajendra Vidyapeeta (hereinafter referred to as the `Vidyapeeta') and Shree Jagadguru Murugharajendra Bruhan Math (hereinafter referred to as the `Math') -writ petitioners, also issued certain directions in the nature of extending the term of the administrator for a period of six weeks as an interim arrangement enabling the devotees of the Math and prominent members of the community to device a plan of action for due administration and management of the affairs of the Math and its institutions with an option to seek relief/redressal in terms of Section 92 of Code of Civil Procedure.
2. The impugned Government Order dated 13.12.2022 appointing the administrator as above, had been issued by the State Government purportedly in exercise of its power under Article 162 and 31(A) of the Constitution of India for the purposes of safeguarding the movable and immovable properties of the Math and Vidyapeeta and to prevent misappropriation of the funds. The said order came to be issued in the light of criminal cases having been filed against Sri.Shiva Murthy Murugha Sharanaru, the pontiff of the Math on 13.10.2022 before Nazarbad Police, Mysore in Crime No.155/2022 for the offences punishable under Section 376(2) (i), 376(3) r/w Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 17, 5(1) and (6) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, investigation of which was transferred by the Fast Track Court, Mysore to Rural Police Chitradurga on the ground of territorial jurisdiction of the offences. The accused-pontiff and other persons have been arrested and are in continuous judicial custody. It appears charge sheets have been filed and after taking cognizance of the matter the Special Court at Chitradurga has registered cases in Spl.C.(P) No.181/2022 and Spl.C(P) No.182/2022.
3. The above writ petitions have been filed by the Vidyapeeta and the math aggrieved by the impugned Government Order alleging violation of Article 14, 19, 21, 25 and 27 of the Constitution of India. It is also contended that the impugned Government Order passed in purported exercise of power under Article 162 and 31A of the Constitution is without authority of law inasmuch as the field is occupied to regulate the activities of the math and institutions under the Code of Civil Procedure and Karnataka Societies Registration Act. That the rights guaranteed under Article 25 and 26(b) can only be regulated by "law" enacted by the legislature and not through and under the executive power as the same would amount to colourable exercise of power. That mere absence of the pontiff in view of filing of cases against him would not empower the Government to exercise its power in the nature of issuing impugned Government Order.
4. On behalf of respondent-State it was contended that the issuance of impugned Government Order in exercise of power under Article 162 of the Constitution of India was necessitated in view of promulgation of Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 which in turn repealed the laws which occupied the field vide Entry 28 of List III of the Constitution of India. That there was no violation of any fundamental rights and since the Government has parens patriae jurisdiction it was necessary to prevent abuse of administration and to safeguard vast of the properties of the math and its institutions.
5. Considering the rival contentions learned Single Judge framed following questions for his consideration, namely;
AI
Article 162 of Constitution extent of executive power of State.
Administrative authority must follow due process and principles of natural justice in disciplinary actions under the applicable statutes, ensuring decisions are not arbitrary or colorable.
Administrative orders affecting civil rights require adherence to natural justice principles, including the opportunity for parties to be heard before such orders are enforced.
The provisions of Sections 50 to 55 of the Act regulate the administration of maths without violating the rights to religious freedom under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
The appointment of an administrator does not confer the power to induct new members, as it would disturb the democratic process and take away the supremacy of the general body.
A judicial authority must respect civil court orders, and educational officers cannot act contrary to binding judicial decisions, highlighting available alternative remedies.
The appointment of an authorized controller under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act must adhere to principles of natural justice, requiring the decision-maker to provide a fair hearing and avoid bi....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.