Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 38256
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M. SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO.105281/2021 (GM-R/C)
BETWEEN
SHRI VENAKATRAMAN DEVASTHAN
SHRI KSHETHRA MANJAGUNI
TAL. SIRSI, U.K DISTRICT.
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR
SHRINIVAS ANNAYYA BHAT
A/A 65 YEARS
ADMINISTRATOR AND ARCHAKS
R/O. MANJAGUNI, TAL. SIRSI
U K DIST. 581402.
PETITIONER
(BY SRI. A. P. HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND
1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT
M S BUILDING
BANGALORE – 560001.
2.
COMMISSIONER
HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND
CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS, K G ROAD
BANGALORE 560009.
2
3.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
UTTARA KANNADA
DIST. KARWAR 581301.
4.
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
SIRSI SUB-DIVISION, SIRSI
UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT-581401.
RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V. S. KALSURMATH, HCGP)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS PER ANNEXURE-F PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.2 AT ADM/8/CR/181/2021/E-552557
DATED
13.12.2021
(ANNEXURE-F)
APPOINTING
RESPONDENT
NO.4
AS
ADMINISTRATOR
OF
THE
PETITIONER TEMPLE.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
Important Points
Subject
Religious Endowments - Appointment of Administrator
Headnote
ADMINISTRATOR APPOINTMENT - JURISDICTION - RAJYA DHARMIKA PARISHAD - SECTION 20 OF THE KARNATAKA HINDU RELIGIOUS CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ACT, 1997
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Temple in Manjaguni, Sirsi Taluk, has impugned the appointment of an Administrator by the second respondent. The appointment is in terms of the impugned Official Memorandum dated 13.12.2021.
Finding of the Court:
The impugned order must be quashed on this short ground alone without any observation on the rival dispute between Sri. Shrinivas Annayya Bhat, who asserts he is the hereditary Trustee registered as such under the Bombay Trust Act, 1950 on the demise of his father and his elder brother, the applicant who has filed the application to implead himself.
Issues: Whether the second respondent has the jurisdiction to appoint an administrator under the provisions of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Charitable Endowments Act, 1997.
Ratio Decidendi: If the Statute vests the jurisdiction in the Rajya Dharmika Parishad, the exercise of such jurisdiction should only be by the Rajya Dharmika Parishad and cannot be by the second respondent who would be a constituent of the Rajya Dharmika Parishad, especially when powers of the Rajya Dharmika Parishad and the second respondent, constituent of Rajya Dharmika Parishad, are clearly delineated in the Statute.
Final Decision: The petition is allowed quashing the impugned Official Memorandum bearing No. ADM/8/CR/181/2021/E-552557 dated 13.12.2021 for want of jurisdiction.
The petitioner, a Temple in Manjaguni, Sirsi
Taluk,
has
impugned
the
appointment
of
an
3
Administrator
by
the
second
respondent.
The
appointment is in terms of the impugned Official
Memorandum dated 13.12.2021 [Annexure-F].
The learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the second respondent is not invested with
the jurisdiction to appoint an administrator under the
provisions of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Charitable
Endowments Act, 1997 and it is only the Rajya
Dharmika
Parishad
which
could
appoint
an
administrator
in
compliance
with
the
procedure
provided the circumstances justifying the same. The
learned
Government
Pleader
substantiates
the
impugned order and the jurisdiction to pass such order
contending that in terms of Section 20 of the aforesaid
Act, the second respondent would also be a Member of
the Rajya Dharmika Parishad and therefore he would
have the jurisdiction.
4
The state’s contention cannot prevail for
obvious reasons. If the Statute vests the jurisdiction in
the Rajya Dharmika Parishad, the exercise of such
jurisdiction should only be by the Rajya Dharmika
Parishad and cannot be by the second respondent who
would be a constituent of the Rajya Dharmika Parishad,
especially when powers of the Rajya Dharmika Parishad
and the second respondent, constituent of Rajya
Dharmika Parishad, are clearly delineated in the
Statute.
The impugned order must be quashed on
this short ground alone without any observation on the
rival dispute between Sri. Shrinivas Annayya Bhat, who
asserts he is the hereditary Trustee registered as such
under the Bombay Trust Act, 1950 on the demise of his
father and his elder brother, the applicant who has filed
the application to implead himself. Therefore, the
petition is allowed quashing the impugned Official
5
Memorandum bearing No. ADM/8/CR/181/2021/E-
552557 dated 13.12.2021 for want of jurisdiction.
In view of the disposal of this petition as aforesaid,
the pending applications stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AN/-
