Section 25B(6)(iii) of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997, explicitly empowers the Deputy Commissioner to adjudicate disputes regarding whether an Archak or temple servant holds office based on hereditary rights.

Digitally signed by (BY SRI. VINAYAKA B VISHNU BATTA, ADVOCATE)

NIRMALA DEVI

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE FINAL ORDER DATED 03.09.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No. 13460/2021 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID WRIT PETITION IN ITS ENTIRETY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA)

1. The present intra Court appeal is filed by the writ petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 03.09.2024 passed in Writ Petition No.13460/2021 (GM-R/C) [impugned order] whereunder, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. The said writ petition was filed by the appellant challenging the order of respondent No.2 - Commissioner, Department of Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowment (Case No.ADM / 7 / AP / 23 / 2017-18, dated 22.04.2021).

2. The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the present appeal are that one Sri Linganna was performing the duties of Archak at Dodda Basavanna and Mahabaleshwara Swamy Temples, which are attached to the Chamundeshwari Temple, Mysuru. The said post of Archak is a hereditary post. The appellant is the son of Sri Linganna and respondent Nos.5 and 6 are the grandsons of Sri Linganna being the sons of Sri. Chandrashekar and Sri Srikantaiah, respectively. The said Sri Chandrashekar and Sri Srikantaiah are the brothers of the appellant.

3. It is the case of the appellant that during his lifetime, his father Sri Linganna had requested the Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru, through the Mujarai Temples' Governing Council, Mysuru, to appoint the appellant to the post of Archak and accordingly, Official Memorandum dated 24.03.1985 was issued appointing the appellant as the Archak for the temples in question. That after a lapse of 29 years, respondent Nos.5 and 6 raised a dispute and staked a claim for the post of Archak contending that they are also entitled to be appointed to the said post on rotation basis.

4. The Deputy Commissioner in exercise of his powers under Section 25B(6)(iii) of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 [Act], by order dated 09.12.2014 held that respondent Nos.5 and 6 were also entitled to carry out the services of Archak along with the appellant on rotation basis for a period of 4 months subject to them qualifying in the Aagama Examinations. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal (No.ADM / 7 / AP-3 / 15-16) before the Commissioner. Vide order dated 03.02.2017, the said appeal was allowed, the order dated 09.12.2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh consideration. Consequent to remand, the Deputy Commissioner by order dated 23.01.2018 rejected the application filed by the private respondents on the ground that the said private respondents have not made out any case of their fathers performing poojas at the aforesaid temples as they were employed elsewhere.

5. Being aggrieved, the private respondents preferred an appeal (No.ADM / 7 / AB / 2