IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI WRIT APPEAL NO. 100099 OF 2024 (GM-R/C)

BETWEEN:

SREE KANYAKA PARAMESWARI DEVASTHANAM ALSO KNOWN AS SREE VASAVI KANYAKA PARAMESWARI DEVASTHANAM, NO.6, WARD NO.IV, S.K.P. TEMPLE STREET, BRUCEPET, BALLARI-583 101, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE, SRI GADAM GOPAL KRISHNA.

… APPELLANT Digitally signed (BY SRI PRAMOD NAIYER, SR. COUNSEL FOR by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF SRI VAMSHI KRISHNA C., ADVOCATE)

KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE COMPOUND, BALLRI DISTRICT, BALLARI-583 101.

3. THE ADMINISTRATOR/EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SREE KANAKA DURGAMMA TEMPLE, HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT OFFICE, GANDHINAGAR, BALLARI-583 101.

… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, DIRECTION OR APPROPRIATE ORDER TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED OBSERVATION AT PARA 7 IN THE ORDER DATED 05.01.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.

NO.105279/2018 AND ETC.

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

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN)

Aggrieved by the order passed in Writ Petition No.100093/2024 (GM-R/C), the writ appeal is filed by the petitioner therein. The appellant is a temple being managed by Arya Vysya Community. A notification has been issued under Section 23 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 (for short, ‘the Act’) notifying the appellant as a Temple for the purposes of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred Writ Petition No.105279/2018 (GM-R/C). The said petition came to be disposed of on 22.11.2022 reserving the liberty to the appellant Temple to submit a written complaint questioning the inclusion of the Temple under a notification issued under Section 23 of the Act. It was further observed that if such a complaint is submitted to the authorities concerned, the same shall be enquired into and after hearing the appellant an appropriate speaking order shall be passed.

2. Though, the order in the writ petition was passed on

22.11.2022, the appellant Temple has not made any written submission to the concerned authority questioning the inclusion of the Temple under the notification issued under Section 23 of the Act.

3. In the meanwhile, the State deemed it appropriate to appoint an administrator in accordance with the provisions of the Act for management of the Temple. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant Temple preferred Writ Petition No.100093/2024 (GM- R/C). In the said writ petition, this Court found that appointment of the administrator was erroneous and hence set aside the said order. However, in respect of the petitioner Temple not approaching the concerned authority for getting excluded from the notification issued under Section 23 of the Act, the following observation has been made:

“7. On inquiry learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no such complaint or representation in furtherance of the order dated 22.11.2022 has been submitted. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the opportunity which had been provided to the petitioner to submit a written complaint, which was to have been done within a reasonable period of time, not having been done, there cannot be any grievance left for the petitioner insofar as a Notification under Section 23 of the Act of 1997, no filing of such complaint