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.

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 1^st 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 sanction of the prescribed authority.

3. The complaint was received by the Deputy Commissioner, who issued a notice to the Petitioner, which was replied to. Thereafter, the matter had been taken up, the Deputy Commissioner passed the impugned order dated 02.03.2015, holding that a sum of Rs.2,29,452/- had been collected by the petitioner-Trust without authorisation from the prescribed authority. A sale of the property had been secured by the Trust on 26.07.2007 without such authorisation, and a gift deed dated 4.09.2013 was made in the name of the Trust and was directed to be entered in the name of the temple. It is challenging the same, that the Petitioner before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

4. Sri.Vyasa Rao.K.S., learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that;

4.1. Section 69(B) of the Act of 1997 came to be inserted in the Act of 1997 by way of Amendment Act No.27 of 2011, which came into effect from 04.05.2011. He therefore, submits that any transaction which has occurred prior to 04.05.2011 cannot be covered by Section 69(B) of the Act of 1997, since the said amended section would be prospective in nature and cannot be applied retrospectively, there is a bar which has been imposed subject to certain permission, which can never be considered to be retrospective in nature.

4.2. Secondly, he submits that a complaint has been made to the Deputy Commissioner, who has issued a notice and conducted enquiry, which could not be so conducted in terms of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowment Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 2002”).

4.3. His submission is that the authorisation is granted to specific authorities for different categories of temples. Insofar as Category-A temple is concerned it would be the Commissioner, insofar as Category-B the Deputy Commissioner and insofar as Category-C the Assistant Commissioner.

4.4. Insofar as the present Petitioner is concerned it is Category-C institution, since the gross annual income does not exceed Rs.5 lakh. He therefore submits that the Deputy Commissioner could not have conducted the enquiry, it ought to have been the Assistant Commissioner who ought to have conducted the enquiry.

4.5. He relies upon decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Dhampur Sugar Mills ltd., vs. State of U.P. & others reported in (2007) 8 SCC 338 more particularly para 23 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference.

23. As to alternative remedy available to the writ petitioner, a finding has been recorded by the High Court in favour of the writ petitioner and the same has not been challenged by the State before us. Even otherwise, from the record, it is clear that the decision has been taken by the Government. Obviously in such cases, remedy of appeal cannot be t