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.

ORDER :

1. The petitioners have challenged the proceedings of the respondent No.2 which culminated in an order bearing declaring the petitioner No.1 as a declared institution under Sections 42 and 43 of the KARNATAKA HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ACT , 1997 (henceforth referred to as 'the Act, 1997').

2. The petitioners claim that Shree Marikamba Temple, Sagar Town, (henceforth referred to as 'the Temple') is an ancient Temple and is represented by an Executive Committee comprised of 21 members and 15 sub-committees which include a sub-committee for conducting jatra / fair which will be conducted once in three years. This fair is being conducted in the temple for more than 100 years by the Executive Committee as well as the jatra sub-committee. The petitioners claim that the accounts of the Temple are duly audited for the period 01.07.1989 to 31.03.2014 and no irregularities or any misappropriation was detected. When things stood thus, the respondent No.3 issued a notice dated 07.10.2013 calling upon the petitioner No.1 to show cause regarding the allegations made by respondent No.4 in his report that the Committee had failed to produce the accounts of the jatra for the period 2001-2009 and why action should not be initiated under Section 42 of the Act, 1997. The petitioners contend that in response to the said notice, the petitioner No.1 submitted a reply to the respondent No.3 on 28.10.2013 contending inter alia that the audit for the period 2007 to 2013 was completed and the statement of assets and liabilities was yet to be finalized. Therefore, he sought two months time to furnish all the documents. Petitioner No.2 informed the respondent No.3 that the members of the Committee had taken charge five months prior to the date of the show cause notice and therefore, they were handicapped to readily produce the documents. The petitioners contend that the respondent No.3 failed to grant the time as sought for or as contemplated under Section 43 (1) of the Act, 1997. The petitioner No.2 addressed the letter dated 06.01.2014 to the respondent No.5 stating that accounts were given to the Auditor for the purpose of auditing and as the fair for the year 2014 was around the corner, sought for three months after the fair was over, to submit audited accounts as well as the statement of assets and liabilities. The petitioner No.1 addressed a letter dated 10.06.2014 to the respondent No.6 enclosing therewith the assets and liabilities statement and accounts of the fair. The petitioners contend that though the respondent No.3 had granted time, the respondent No.5 issued a final notice dated 13.10.2014 calling upon the petitioner No.1 to submit the accounts within seven days failing which action would be initiated under the Act, 1997. The petitioners further contend that the petitioner No.2 addressed a letter dated 13.11.2014 to the respondent No.5 enclosing therewith audited reports and also the accounts of the jatra for the period 18.02.2014 to 26.02.2014. Nonetheless, the respondent No.2 without considering the documents produced by the petitioner, passed an order dated 12.04.2016 applying the provisions of Sections 42 and 43 of the Act, 1997 to the Temple and handed it over to the department of Muzrai. The petitioners claim that though the aforesaid order was passed on 12.04.2016, the same is not communicated to the petitioners and that the petitioners came to know of it only when it was published in the local newspaper in the second week of April 2016. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 12.04.2016, have filed this writ petition.

---3. The writ petition is opposed by t