SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 35013

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
K SOMANATHA NAIK – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE – Respondent
WP 36372/2024



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 36372 OF 2024 (GM-R/C)

BETWEEN:

K. SOMANATHA NAIK S/O JAYAVANTHA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT GANESH NIVAS, PERVAJE ROAD, KARKALA, UDUPI DISTRICT-574 104.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. DILRAJ JUDE ROHIT SEQUEIRA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, Digitally signed MUZURAI DEPARTMENT, by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, Location: HIGH VIDHANA SOUDHA, COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560 001.

2. COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT, MINTO ANJANEYA BHAVANA, ALUR VENKATARAO ROAD, CHAMARAJAPETE, BANGALORE-560 018.

3. DISTRICT COMMISSIONER, THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, RAJATADRI, MANIPAL, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-576 104.

4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-576 104.

5. TAHSILDAR AND EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE, TALUKU ADALITHA SOUDHA, KARKALA TALUK, KARKALA, UDUPI DISTRICT-574 104.

6. K.B. GOPLAKRISHNA RAO, S/O ANNAPPA SHERIGHAR, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, R/A KASABA GRAMA, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-574 104.

7. BALAKRISHNA RAO, S/O LATE SRINIVAS HAVALDHAR, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, R/AT 1ST MAIN, GOPAPURA, 5TH CROSS, SANTHEKATTE, KALYANAPURA, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-576 105. 8. SURESH HAVALDHAR, S/O LATE HARISHCHANDRA HAVALDHAR, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/A KASABA GRAMA, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-574 104.

9. RAGHAVENDRA, S/O LATE K.J. VENKATAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/A KASABA GRAMA, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-574 104.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. RAVINDRANATH AGA FOR R1 TO R5, V/O DATED 04.11.2025 NOTICE TO R6 TO R9 DISPENSED WITH)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. DIRECTION IN SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER REJECTING THE IMPLEADING APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER I RULE 10 OF THE C.P.C. BY THE PETITIONER BY THE HONORABLE NYAYADHIKARANA KARNATAKA RAJYA DHARMIKA PARISHAD, BANGALORE IN RDP TRI NO.08/2023-2024 DATED 22/11/2024 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

ORAL ORDER

1. Learned AGA accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 to

5.

2. Notice to respondent No.6 to 9 is dispensed with in view of the proposed order to be passed.

3. Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

"A. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other order or direction in setting aside the order rejecting the Impleading application filed under Order I Rule 10 of the C.P.C. by the petitioner by the Honorable Nyayadhikarana Karnataka Rajya Dharmika Parishad, Bangalore in RDP TRI No.08/2023-2024 Dated 22/11/2024 produced at Annexure-A.

B. Allow the application filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 of the code of civil procedure to implead himself as one of the parties to assist the Honourable Nyayadhikarana Karnataka Rajya Dharmika Parishad, Bangalore in RDP TRI NO.08/2023-2024 in coming to the just decision of the case produced at Annexure-AH.

C. Appoint Administrator to Manage the affairs of the Kote Kille Mariamma Temple at Karkala".

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the impleading application filed by him in the pending proceeding before the Nyayadhikarna Karnataka Rajya Dharmika Parishat, Bengaluru, in I.A.No. in RDP TRI 8/2023-24 came to be dismissed by way of the impugned order dated 22.11.2024.

5. The submission of Sri.Dilraj Jude Rohit Sequeira, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a public-spirited individual and he wishes to bring to notice the history of the temple as well as certain other facts, which would have been required to be considered by the Rajya Dharmika Parishat before orders were passed.

6. On enquiry as to whether the petitioner is a candidate for being appointed as a hereditary Archak or the like, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is not interested in doing so and h

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top