Karnataka High Court
Sri Yekkaru Kodamanithaya Daivasthana vs State Of Karnataka on 23 July, 2009
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
GM COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUR tenet IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DATED THIS THE 25rd DAY OF JULY 72008 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRARELDY AT BANGALORE W.P. Wo .12934/2007 (GH-RE) - 1 UP RARNATARA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 4 SRI YEKKARU KODAMANITHAYA, DALIVASTHANA NEAR KATIL,MANGALORE TALUE. CO DAXSHINA KANNADA DISTRICS BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTS Sar DURGAPRASA > SHETTY. . . ne ee Pat 2TIONER (By SRI A A VANDA SHETTY, ALV. 1 STATE OF. KARNATAKA | Bae, BY SECEBTARY (REVENUE DEPARTMENT) VILDHANA. SOUDHA -- DR, AMBEDKAR VEEOHI BANCALOSE 1. 2: conmrseronsa: FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARTTASLE- ENDOWMENTS KARNAT AKA" STAT . x CHEMALAIP ET BANGALORE ~ 560018 3 DEPUTY COMMISSINER HR-& CE _ MANGALORE DISTRICT eng) By SRI A.R.SHARADHAMBA, AGA) ne THIS W.P. FILLED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 'OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION DATED.25.7.2007, PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-&. S EDR Tas Gal He Sao te thet Se I FO RE he hal ee ROR PT DRE ER hoe Met hl BR Sal EO BOG LES BU ct ot Sal? GP GO EY RO, RP EME Be a EP I, Bat AO, BR eS La THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRILIMNARY HEARING in "BY GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER. haaring {B Group) is coneide eraa) for inal disposal having regarding to the quest Lon that is % raised in this writ petition 2, The facts lesding to this-pecition are that the petitioner ciaims a2 :.a° Daivasthana and unlike a temple, the, worshippers beleng to one oF: ree family named "Kavara Hane" Thangadi Kavaru. Four deities.are wore hipped by the family membars and the daities are installed in the residential house .belonging .to the said famuly. Therefore, ne concept of temple, which 1s ----
quite contrary to th i me Lo i ™ = due a, be 2 . Open te. the general public the petitioner-~ . by Brahming. Hence, the petitioner institution ie not a public instituti¢n and at the most may & ue MG COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUR EEE SE SUE NA I AOR CP RRA ARA HGH COURT OF RARNATAKA HiGH COURT OF KARBNATA® ball be referred to a8 3 Ganominationai temple as par "te the definition provided under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. The 2Lgeet respondent, it transpires had sought to. include thea petitioner-institution within the ambit of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments. act, te, 1997. The petiticnar had. approa ache a this. Court ny way of a writ petition ii. W.P.No.31997/03 ana :
while the challenging che. application oF the said rt fot ot rt ia be ae tf Act had taken 2 ape B. be, cific contention that ef Saction st), sha petdLénae'reaes tution could net be beouyht under the: pliewlew of the amanded Act roi. thé, Yeiasoit thst' the' state Government hag excluded Mutts and religious institutions run or managed: by Hindu religious denominations, from the ambit af' the 'Act. The patitien, which was ¢hubbed with...similar matters was ultimately "pejected vide order dated 9.9.20048. However, a
- Uivision Sench of this Court set aside the order of the learned Single Judge by order dated in Writ Appeal No.3484/05 and struck oy @.9.206 down the provigiene of the act as being in or ie ihe a mr Bp hs fe b A fie Aa.
ee s unconstitutional. The Sama he S SORE QE EE TENE EES AE WE TE UE ETE Ee UE AE PCE PL CRT PT We AM, PGE LU CP ANE MEM COUNT s $ i 4 in dizxegard.teo the judgment rendered the firgt respondent before the Supreme Court anc the same is pending adjudication. In the meanwhile, with the demise oF the then Managing 3 rustee of the petitioner's ingtitution, . the a present Managing Trustes wag slectac along with the new managing committse, which "Has" started functioning with immediate affect. Tha. third respondent had chereafve issued a notification dated 25.7,2007 inviting. applications from the general public to reconstitute the Managing Comm ttee af the, petitiotiar-rnetitution. in rasponse to this, petitioner. had made a detailed representation addressec to the second and third respondents raising oblections to the move on the Court and notwithstanding the same having been
- challenged before the Apex Court it was not open fer the respondent to proceed as proposed in view of the previsions of the Act having bean struck down. It ig in this tener that saveral drounds aré urged in tha writ petition.
ZB RANATAKA HIGH COUR i.0
i 4 3 2, o x g = JRL? WP RAINE AI God COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAGS submit that the legal position amanating in view ef tha provisions of the Act being struck down by &@ Division Bench of this Court and the | sama having been carried to the Supreme Court and"
though there is an order cf stay of 'the operation af the judgmant, the judgmant of a Division Bench af this court continues to be in force till auch time that the matter is finally disposed of by the Supreme Court. This according to the counsel is the legal positien that would emerge as understovd from the meaniog to be given to the scopa of an ordar "staying the operation of the judgmas.t" and an "order "quashing the judgment by virtue of @ final order". In the instant cage, the. Supreme Court having merely stayed the
-. dudgment.of a Division Bench of this Court, the
-@fFach of. the judgment deas not stand effaced.
In the result, the provigiong of the Act ara to be kept in abeyance. In support of this . preposition, the counsel seeks to place reliance on &@ judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S ee EH A TS TE ER ST RE TN REE he Ee eT TE FTE er WT ARR, Por LURE oP CARN ATAKA HIGH COUR S00TH INIQA THRUST aASSoclallag, $C 1439). The controversy therein arose -in the following circumstances: ~-
The appellant - Shree Chanundi- Mopeds' Limited was a public limited company. which vas. gatoup with the objact of manufacturing mopeds "in collaboration with cycle: Peugeot of" France. tt had set up a factory ang it had taken on rent the premises pelonging. co the respondent. The company had defaulted in payment ef rents. The respondent had issued a notice. The appellant had sdmitted. the ligbilitv to pay the rents but money. towards a developmental lean from Government of Karnataka and that it would clear
-. €he arrears, the moment it receives the funds. "In response te this, a notica wags issuad under Section 434 of the Companies Act and it waa follewed with a petition undar Section 4393/8) af . the Companies Act seeking winding-up of the appellant company. While the winding-up petition SE ASA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUR ns JUKI UF RAKNAIAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARY Wage pending, the Appellant had appreachad the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (Hereinafter referred to as the "Beara" for brevity) seeking rehabilitation. The Board, by its order having found that the appellant vas conomically and commercially -- a - non-viable , entity, the order of the Board wae cartied béYore the Appellate Authority. The. Appellate Authority in then, having dismissed the appeal,' the same was challenged by "the" appellant before the Delhi High Court by way. ; of 2 ' wit petition and th Delhi High Court: having" granted an order of stay oF operation of | the 'order of the Appellate Authority and notwithetandin the same, this Court having: proceeding with the pending winding-
up petition, vhe- controversy cantered around ne E & whether this court could have proceeded with the "winding-up. proceeding in the light of the order
- of stay granted by the Delhi High Court. The Supreme Court held that the preceedings before tha Board under Sections 15 and 16 of the Sick 'thdustrial Companies Act had been tarminated. The appeal filed by the appellant company under S CHT OH te ee QT OEE, PU WAU Wi RANA AR Mort URE UP LaLa A MEG COURT soot "bool Chall BPS i Man" SR aN EE PR ER Ble Shell at Mat A, "an order does not, however, lead to suci Section 25 was dismissed. AS 4a result «cf thase orders no proceedings under the Sick Industries Act was pending neither before the Board.or the Appellate Authority, when the Delhi "igh Court pagsed the interim ordar staying the oparstian. of the ordar of tha Appallate.a authority. The, said. , stay order of the High Cou py cannot have™ the effect of reviving the proceedings 'which had peen disposed oF by the Appellate "Authority by ites order. while considexing the affect of an interim order staying, the eparakisn of the order under chaliar 98, a dis stinetion has to be mace petwees, guashing" cof an, "order and stay of operation of an order. Quashing of an order results. in the restoration ef the position as it whi ch has bean quashed. Tha stay of operation of a a ~ Pesult.- 'at only means that the order, which has been stayed would not be operative from the date .
goee nat re ef the passing of the stay order and i mean that the said ordar has bean wiped out from axigtence. Thig maans that 1f an order passed by JALORLA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HiGH CGUR & the oo bus te zal o 42 oe Q = E aa $ Ede o iat ad 2, ie ee S 8 g a ae LURE OF RAN ATARA HIGH COURT CER | Delhi High Coupe staying tha operation of the the Appellate Authority is quashed anc the mattar is semanded, the result would be that the appeal which had been disposed of by the said order of the Appellate Autherity would be restored and it can be said to ba panding before the Apps Authority after the quashing of the ovder of the Appellate Authority. The, sane vannot "be "said with regard to an orden. staying the operation of the order of the Appellate Authority because ingpite of the skid opdez, 'the order of the Appellate Authority continued to exist if law and #Q long as it axists, it cannot be said that the appeal which has been "diupdsed of by the said order has. not peen disposed of and is #tiil pending. Therefore, the Supreme Court opined that the passing -of the interim order by the ke 3 order' of the Appellate Authority dces not have
- the effect of reviving the appeal anc it cannot @ said that the order by the learned Single Ey att Judge of this Court for winding-up of the Compan was bad in law.
S Hi ET GME WT VARI, Ta GM! WP RAKNALARA HIGH COLIRT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COU' Sea EAR US URGE RAE BE ne aac a Wh, ie PEE ON, Sg, 1G 4, Thea above ¢a5a@ and thea ratie of the judgment being sought te be oresged into service in the present case on hand, is cut of place. The Supreme Court having stayed the oper beta ion of the judgment of thie court would have the. ofv'sct Gf keeping the meovtsiena, of thé Act. ative \and anforceable. if ultimately, the appeal is. decided to uphold the Jodgment of this Court, che Striking down of the provisions of the Act would then be applicable: and it is only than, at could b@ gaid that the provisiont of. the Act are ne longar applicable.
Bs Mange, there. is /no ground mada out in the pregent petition and the same is dismissed.
Sd/= Judge *elb/= _