Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J
Bharghava Trust (R) – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commissioner Hindu Religious Institutions And Charitable Endowments – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of reliefs sought and the complaint filed. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. controversy on authority and procedural compliance in institutional checks. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. government authority's power to conduct inquiries. (Para 6) |
| 4. points for determination regarding jurisdiction and maintainability. (Para 8) |
| 5. court's conclusions on jurisdiction, amendment enforcement, and the maintainability of the petition. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 6. conclusion and order to quash prior decision. (Para 13) |
ORDER :
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J.
1. Petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs;
a. To issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order Annexure-A dated 2.3.2015 passed by the 1st respondent in Case No.DVS:LAW:CR 53/2013-14.
b. Such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case.
2. A complaint had been lodged by respondent No.2 on 28.08.2013 under Section 69(B) of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutional Charitable Endowment Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1997”) alleging that the petitioner-Trust being a notified institution, was collecting funds on behalf of the notified Institution without sancti
The amendment to Section 69(B) of the Karnataka Act is prospective, limiting jurisdiction to specified authorities for inquiries on fund collections post-04.05.2011.
An executive order declaring a religious institution as a declared institution under the Act was quashed for lack of procedural fairness and failure to conduct a proper enquiry.
The appointment of non-hereditary trustees is valid under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act when there is evidence of mismanagement by hereditary trustees, and full legal procedures a....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Assistant Commissioner does not have the power to declare an institution as a religious institution and appoint a fit person under Section....
The Joint Commissioner must conduct inquiries under Section 63(b) of the Act, as delegation of this duty to the Inspector is invalid, affirming that statutory roles cannot be delegated without explic....
The judicial inquiry under Section 63 of the Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act must be conducted by the Joint Commissioner, as the power to delegate this authority is not granted, ensuring legal compliance and du....
The court established that the Commissioner of Endowments lacked jurisdiction to revoke exemptions and appoint trustees without following due process as mandated by the Endowments Act.
Point of Law : Exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not barred merely because there is an alternative remedy of appeal.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
