ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 06.01.2023, passed by respondent No.2 – Deputy Commissioner, who declines the plea of the petitioner that he is hereditary Archak at Sri Chennakeshava Swamy Temple, Bhoovanahalli.

2. Heard Sri Abhinav R., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.V.Krishna, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents - State.

3. The petitioner’s father late M.S.Sheshadri Iyengar was a hereditary Archak in possession and cultivation of Inam lands attached to the Deity, before the re-grant was made in favour of him. After the death of the petitioner’s father, the petitioner was handed over the Archakship of the temple as it was in a nature of hereditary post. Certain villagers who according to the petitioner were wanting to knock off the lands attached to the deity, made allegations against the petitioner that he has been misbehaving with the public and devotees; he is not performing the pooja as is necessary and it is highly inappropriate to continue the petitioner as Archak in the temple. On the basis of the said allegations and based on the report of the second respondent, the first respondent removes the petitioner from Archakship without any issuance of notice. This becomes subject matter in writ petition in W.P.No.6322/2011, calling in question the order dated 01.12.2010, by which the petitioner was removed from the post of Archak. This Court in terms of its order dated 09.03.2011, allowed the petition as the order was in violation of principles of natural justice; sets aside the impugned order reserving liberty to the authorities to initiate action in accordance with law. The petitioner was not reinstated, which leads the petitioner to file a Miscellaneous Writ in Misc.W.No.7289/2011. This Court observed that the petitioner has to be reinstated or face consequence in law. He was later reinstated. The Deputy Commissioner later passes an order in favour of the petitioner on 19.10.2011, after which, a review petition is preferred by Karigowda and others, who had nothing to do with the issue between the Deputy Commissioner and the petitioner.

4. The petitioner after all the chequered legal proceedings, gave representation on 12.03.2021 enclosing certain documents claiming hereditary Archakship at the aforesaid temple. By the impugned order dated 06.01.2023, the Deputy Commissioner holds that the Archakship at the temple is not hereditary post and no documents is placed by the petitioner to demonstrate that the forefathers of the petitioner were the Archaks in the temple. It is this order that is called in question by the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it is not the first time that the petitioner is claiming that he is a hereditary Archak in the temple. This Court while disposing W.P.No.36563/2013 has clearly directed the Deputy Commissioner to consider the documents that has placed before it and the Deputy Commissioner considers none. Therefore, he seeks to remit the matter back to the hands of the Deputy Commissioner for fresh consideration.

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate though would seek to justify the impugned order, is not in a position to dispute the fact that the Deputy Commissioner does not consider any of the documents produced by the petitioner. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record.

8. The afore-narrated facts are what is pleaded and therefore, do not require reiteration. The petitioner had been removed from the Archakship by an order dated 01.12.2010, which is challenged before this Court in W.P.No.6322/2011 and this Court by order dated 09.03.2011, set it aside by the following order:

“2. On the basis of certain allegations made by some of the villagers alleging that the petitioner was not discharging his duties as Archak properly and was misbehaving with the public who were visiting the tem