Back
Karnataka High Court: Shree Malatesh Temple Continues Unless Altered Under Section 92 CPC
A division bench of the has ruled that a for management of the historic Shree Malatesh (Mailarlinga) Temple, settled under , will continue to operate unless specifically altered by the Deputy Commissioner under .
The bench, comprising Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav and Justice Hema Kulkarni, passed this while staying a single judge’s order that had quashed the notification of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, for constituting a fresh managing committee for the temple.
The Legal Tussle Over Temple Management
The case concerns the Shree Malatesh Temple in Devaragudda, which has been governed by a scheme framed in under Section 92 CPC, following a suit from . Under this scheme, the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, acts as the and appoints a managing committee.
In , the District Judge issued a notification inviting applications for a new committee. This was challenged by a devotee, who argued that the District Judge lost authority after the temple was notified under . On , a single judge allowed the petition, holding that once a temple is notified under the HRICE Act, its management must be governed by Section 25 of that Act, not by the old Section 92 CPC scheme.
The appealed, contending that the scheme remains valid until the Deputy Commissioner modifies or cancels it under the HRICE Act.
HRICE Act vs Section 92 CPC: A Clash of Statutes
Senior Counsel , appearing for the , argued that the HRICE Act does not expressly repeal Section 92 CPC schemes. He pointed to the repeal clause under , which makes no mention of such schemes – in contrast to the , which specifically repeals Section 92 CPC schemes.
The committee also submitted that under Section 25(B)(4) of the HRICE Act, only the Deputy Commissioner has the power to alter or cancel a . Since no such order had been passed, the existing scheme must continue.
Additional Advocate General , representing the State, countered that once a temple is notified under Section 23, the HRICE Act takes over, and the District Judge’s role under Section 92 CPC ceases. He argued that Section 25(B)(4) does not restrict the State’s power to constitute a management committee under Section 25.
, Remains Valid
The High Court, after hearing both sides, gave a finding in favor of the . The bench observed that the HRICE Act does not contain a provision comparable to , which expressly repeals Section 92 CPC schemes. The court also noted that the Deputy Commissioner’s order dated – relied upon by the State – was passed under Section 29 (appointment of administrator), not under Section 25(B)(4).
“If Committee is constituted under a Scheme under Section 92 of CPC, 1908 as in the present case and has been in force, , unless such Scheme is altered or modified in terms of Section 25(B)(4) of HRICE Act, the Committee under the existing Scheme would continue,” the court observed.
On the State’s argument that registration under the , makes Section 92 CPC inapplicable, the court cited , noting that such inapplicability is only prospective and does not repeal an already operative scheme.
Pragmatic Continuation Pending Final Resolution
While making it clear that these observations are tentative and subject to final adjudication, the bench considered the practical need for stable administration. The committee currently in charge was elected in and had a five-year term, but there is no indication of a subsequent election.
Staying the single judge’s order and the State’s consequent appointment of an administrative officer, the court allowed the District Judge’s notification for a fresh committee to be acted upon. However, it clarified that the committee so constituted will function under the supervision of the District Judge, pending disposal of the appeal.
Notably, the constitutional validity of the HRICE Act itself is currently under consideration before the in the Sabarimala review proceedings, adding another layer of complexity to this legal tussle.
The court’s ensures that the temple’s affairs continue smoothly while the broader legal questions about the interplay between Section 92 CPC schemes and the HRICE Act are settled. The matter will now proceed to a full hearing on the appeal.
