The tenure of a Committee appointed under Section 25 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 commences from the date of the order, as prescribed by Section 26(1) of the Act, and cannot be extended based on subsequent events.

ORDER :

The petitioners, in both these cases, are the Members of the Committee of Sri Mukambika Temple, Kollur. They are knocking at the doors of this Court in the subject petition seeking to quash, modify or read down the order dated 27-10-2020 issued by the 1st respondent to the extent of prescription of the term to be beginning from the date of issuance of the order to the date of first meeting of the Managing Committee.

2. Heard Sri M.Aruna Shyam, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt. Navya Shekhar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents in both the petitions and Sri Prabhuling K.Navadagi, learned senior counsel appearing for impleading applicant in W.P.No.23430 of 2023.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows :

The subject of the petition is Sri Mukambika Temple, Kollur. It is a temple notified under the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). The temple has a Managing Committee. The Managing Committee is appointed under Section 25 of the Act. The petitioners are all Members of the Managing Committee, including its Chairman. The petitioners in both the cases come to be appointed as Members of the Committee on 27-10-2020. Section 25 of the Act prescribes the term to be three years. The petitioners pursuant to the order of appointment on 27-10-2020 are functioning as Members of the Committee till time arose when formation of a new Committee was to take place. It is, therefore, the subject petition is preferred seeking modification of the order which appoints them by issue of a writ of certiorari and a direction to continue them for the complete period of three years.

4. The learned senior counsel Sri M.Aruna Shyam appearing for the petitioners would seek to contend that though the order dated 27-10-2020 depicts that it is for three years with certain conditions, the first meeting of the Committee took place only on 26-04-2021. Therefore, on and from the date of the first meeting held, the period of the petitioners should commence and if that is held to be so, the Committee would continue up to 25-04-2024. What has driven the petitioners at this juncture is that, efforts are being made to appoint a new committee in terms of Section 25 of the Act on the score that the term of the present committee would come to an end on 26-10-2023. He would seek modification of the order as sought in the petition.

5. An impleading application is preferred in W.P.No.23430 of 2023 and permission was sought by the learned senior counsel Sri. Prabhuling K.Navadagi to represent the impleading applicant and assistant the Court. He was therefore heard with the permission of the Court. The learned senior counsel would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that the petitioners took birth as Members of the Committee on the strength of an order dated 27-10-2020. For a period of three years they have taken the benefit of the order and now want to get the order modified. They cannot approbate and reprobate is his first submission. He would contend that Section 25 of the Act does not give any such scope of interpretation that it would commence from the date on which first meeting of the committee took place. He would seek dismissal of the petition as the interim order is operating and the petitioners are continuing beyond the period that they could continue.

6. The learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Navya Shekhar would also toe the lines of the learned senior counsel and has produced original records for perusal of the Court which went into the decision making at the time when the Committee was appointed and further vehemently submits that the Committee is appointed on a particular date and from that date three years should be taken into consideration and not from any other date as contended by the petitioners.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and ha