2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 11847
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
CHOLPADY SREE VENUGOPALAKRISHNA TEMPLE – Appellant
Versus
THE COMMISSIONER – Respondent
WP 54492 / 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 54492 OF 2017 (GM-R/C)
BETWEEN:
1. CHOLPADY SREE VENUGOPALAKRISHNA TEMPLE KABETTU, KARKALA 574 104, UDUPI DISTRICT
2. MR. SANKETH UPADHYAYA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O. LATE. KVS UPADHYAYA, KABETTU, KARKALA 574 104, UDUPI DISTRICT …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CHANDRANATH ARIGA K.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOIUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS, STATE OF KARNATAKA, Digitally signed by SHWETHA MALE MAHADESHWARA BUILDING, RAGHAVENDRA CHAMARAJPET, Location: HIGH BENGALURU 560018 COURT OF KARNATAKA
2. HINDU RELIGIOIUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS INSTITUTIONS, REP BY ITS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HR & CE & PRISIDENT, ZILLA DHARMIKA PARISHAD, RAJATHADRI, MANI 576 104.
UDUPI DISTRICT
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOIUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS, UDUPI DISTRICT, RAJATHADRI MANIPAL-576104 UDUPI DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS
4. SRI PRAVEEN CHANDRA SHETTY S/O LATE VITTALA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT KATTEMAR PADE HOUSE KABETTU, KARKALA UDUPI DISTRICT-574104. …IMPLEADING APPLICANT (BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR., AGA FOR R1, R3 & ALSO R2;
SRI. PRASANNA V.R., ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING APPLICATION ON I.A.1/2018)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH NOTIFICATION NO. OVS/EST(2) CR 71/2012-13/57169 DATED 3.12.2012 AT ANNEX-E IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER TEMPLE AT SL.
NO. 33 OF KARKALA TALUK AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a. Quash Notification No. DVS/EST(2) CR 71/2012-
13/57169 dated 03.12.2012 (Annexure-E) in so far as petitioner Temple at Sl.No.33 of Karkala Taluk.
b. Quash the Notification in TR S CR 05/2016-17 dated 22.9.2017 (Annexure-J).
c. Grant such Other relief as this Hon’ble Court deem fit to.
2. There is a claim that Cholpady Venugopalakrishna temple situated at Karkala Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District now Udupi District is a hereditary temple maintained by the petitioner's family and in that regard, reference and reliance is placed on various documents. The petitioner had approached this Court being aggrieved by the notification of Annexure-E dated 03.12.2012 inviting applications for management of this temple as also by way of Annexure-J which is another notification issued inviting applications for management of the said temple.
3. The submission of Sri.Chandranath Ariga.K., learned counsel for the petitioner is that;
3.1. The notification at Annexure-J has spent itself in as much as a time period has lapsed and no management committee has been appointed to the aforesaid temple. Insofar as Annexure-E is concerned, he submits that there were various representation and documents that were submitted by the petitioner for deleting the aforesaid temple from the list of Category-C temples maintained by the endowment commissioner.
3.2. All the documents having been submitted, his contention is that proceedings under Section 20-A of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 (for short hereinafter referred to as Act of 1997) ought to have been taken up, the objection of the petitioner considered on the basis of the documents submitted and necessary orders passed thereon.
3.3. The same not having been done, his contention is that the aforesaid temple could not have been categorized as the Category-C temple inviting applications for management of the said temple.
4. Sri.Prasanna.V.R., learned counsel for the impleading applicants submits that;
4.1. The impleading applicant had applied under aforesaid notification at Annexure-J and as such is an aggrieved party. If at all the representation of the petitioner were to be considered and the temple denotified, then the interest of the impleading applicant would suffer. As such, he submitted that the