IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 30567 OF 2025 (GM-R/C)

BETWEEN:

SRI.K. YATHIRAJAN AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS S/O SRI KESHAVACHAR R/O. T. VENKATAPURA THALAKAYALBETTA SIDLAGHATTA TALUK CHIKKABALAPURA DISTRICT - 562 125.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. R A CHANDRASHEKARA REDDY., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE COMMISSIONER FOR THE HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS BANGALORE.

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT CHIKKABALLURA - 562 101.

3. THE TAHSILDAR SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 105.

4. SRI G.K. VASUDEV SON IN LAW OF LATE SRI S.V. KESHAVABATTACHARYA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT T. VENKATAPURA SRI VENKATARAMANASWAMY TEMPLE THALAKAYALABETTA, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 105.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B. RAVINDRANATH., AGA FOR R1 TO R3;

SRI. HARISHCHANDRA MOVVAR., ADVOCATE FOR C/R4)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE R-1 BEARING REFERENCE NO. ADM.7/AP25/2023- 24 DATED 24.07.2025 VIDE ANNX-A; ISSUE A WRIT OF PROHIBITION RESTRAINING R-1 TO 3 FROM EXERCISING QUASI-JUDICIAL POWERS UNDER KARNATAKA HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ACT, 1997, IN RELATION TO HEREDITARY RIGHTS; DECLARE THAT THE R-4 HAD NO RIGHT TO CLAIM HEREDITARY OFFICE OF ARCHAKA/ AGAMIKA IN RESPECT OF SRI.VENKATESWARASWAMY TEMPLE, THALAKAYALABETTA, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA; DIRECT THE R-1 TO 3 NOT TO INTERFERE WITH PETITIONERS HEREDITARY RIGHTS TO ARCHAKA /

AGAMIKA OF THE SAID TEMPLE.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner is appointed as the Archak of Sri Venkateshwara Swamy Temple, Thalakayalabetta, Sidlaghatta Taluk, Chikkaballapura District under Section 25B [6] [iii] of the Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 2011 [for short, ‘the Act’]. The second respondent has appointed the petitioner as the Archak on 09.06.2023 [Annexure-E].

2. The fourth respondent, who is related to the petitioner, has called the second respondent’s order dated 09.06.2023 with the first respondent under Section 25B [7] of the Act. The first respondent has interfered with the second respondent's order dated 09.06.2023 restoring the proceedings for reconsideration observing that if in case both the petitioner and the fourth respondent fail to establish their hereditary right to be appointed as Archak, the second respondent must pass orders under the relevant Act/Rules for appointment of Archak.

3. Sri R. A. Chandrashekara Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri.B.Ravindranath, the learned Additional Government Advocate who accepts notice for the first to third respondents, are heard. Sri. R. A.

Chandrashekara Reddy submits that this Court must intervene because the petitioner's right to be appointed as the Archak, which is pending consideration in a properly instituted suit, is secured with the civil Court directing the parties to maintain status quo and that the first respondent, with this order being in force, could not have intervened to set aside the second respondent's order dated

09.06.2023.

4. The first respondent's order is dated

24.07.2025, and there is no interim order staying the operation of the first respondent's order in all these months. If this is the first reason that does not persuades this Court to intervene, the other reason is that it would still be open to the petitioner to place on record not just the fact of status quo order operating in his favour but all other circumstances which will have to be considered by the second respondent. Therefore, the petition stands disposed of calling upon the second respondent to decide the pending proceedings by a reasoned order considering all facts including the efficacy of the status quo order that