IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ REVIEW PETITION NO. 722 OF 2022 BETWEEN:

BHASYAMASWAMY @ N.VENKATACHAR AGED 67 YEARS S/O LATE S. NARASIMHACHAR UTTARADI MATH ROAD MYSORE-570004 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.P.SHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. ASHOK HANDE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. NARAYANA BHATTAR AGED 54 YEARS S/O. SAMPATHKUMAR BHATTAR R/O. AKKATANGI KOLLA STREET MELUKOTE, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DIST.-571434 Digitally signed by SUMA 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA Location:

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (MUZARAI)

HIGH COURT OF M.S. BUILDING KARNATAKA DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560001 REP BY ITS SECRETARY

3. THE COMMISSIONER HINDU CHARITABLE AND RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS OFFICE OF THE MUZRAI COMMISSIONER 2^ND FLOOR, SRI MALAI MAHADESHWARA VARTHA BHAVANA, ALOORU VENAKTARAMA ROAD, CHAMRAJEPET, BANGALORE-560018

4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT, BANGALORE MYSORE ROAD MANDYA-571401

5. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND ADMINISTRATOR SRI CHELUVANARAYANA SWAMY TEMPLE PANDAVAPURA SUB-DIVISION PANDAVAPURA, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA-571401

6. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF SRI CHELUVANARAYANA SWAMY TEMPLE MELOKOTE, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DIST.-571434 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ABHINAV RAMANAND A., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

SRI. SRINIVASA KUMAR M. HCGP FOR R2 TO R6)

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN WP NO.55664/2014 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT AND GRANT REVIEW OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.12.2021 PASSED THEREIN AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO HEAR THE WRIT PETITION ON MERITS, IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

ORAL ORDER

This review petition is filed to review the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.55664/2017.

2. The facts put in a nutshell are that the petitioner in the review petition was appointed by the respondent No.2 on 'temporary basis' to officiate as an Archak at Yoganarasimhaswamy temple, Melukote, whenever there was a period of 'Ashucha' in the family of officiating priests. This was questioned by the respondent No.1 herein in W.P.No.55664/2017 primarily, on the ground that the respondent No.1 was entitled to nominate a substitute archak and obtain approval of the committee of the management of the Executive Officer. He contends that the petitioner therefore could not have been appointed to even officiate on temporary basis. This Court noticed the contentions and allowed the writ petition in terms of an order dated 03.12.2021.

3. The petitioner herein challenged the said order in Writ Appeal No.256/2022 which he withdrew with liberty to seek review of the order dated 03.12.2021 passed by a co- ordinate bench of this Court in the light of Section 77 of Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 (henceforth referred to as 'Act, 1997).

4. The petitioner is therefore before this Court seeking to review the order dated 03.12.2021.

5. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Deputy Commissioner is entitled to frame a scheme and also pass orders under Section 25-B of the Act, 1997 for the administration of the temple. He contends that the order appointing the petitioner was in exercise of the power vested in the respondent No.2 under Section 25-B of the Act, 1997, as five devotees of the temple had lodged a complaint against the respondent No.1 herein. He contends that this was not looked into by the Coordinate bench of this Court while disposing off W.P.No.55664/2017. He also contends that under Rule 15 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Rules, 2002 (henceforth referred to as 'Rules 2002' for short), the nomination of a substitute archak has to be approved by the executive officer and therefore, the respondent No.2 does not have the absolute right to appoint a person as a substitute.

6. The learned counsel