Karnataka High Court
Ganapathi Manjunath Hegde vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 August, 2021
Author: S.R. Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R. Krishna Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.100358/2016(GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. GANAPATHI MANJUNATH HEGDE,
AGE:45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O:MURUR CROSS, POST:KUMTA
TQ:KUMTA, DIST:KARWAR.
2. SUBRAMANYA RAMACHANDRA HEGDE,
AGE:52 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURIST,
R/O:KANDAVALLI, POST:KALLABBE
TQ:KUMA, DIST:KARWAR.
3. TIMAMNNA VISHWASHWAR HEGDE,
AGE:60 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURIST,
R/O:HOLLIMANE, POST:KALLABBE,
TQ:KUMTA, DIST:KARWAR.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI S.V.YAJI AND SRI HARSH DESAI, ADVOCATES)
AND :
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY REVENUE SECRETARY,
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
UTTAR KANNADA, KARWAR.
2
3. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR,
AND REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES
M.G.ROAD, DIST:KARWAR.
4. THE HAVYAK VIDYAVARDHAKA SANGHA,
MURUR ROAD, KUMTA,
REP BY ITS SECRETARY.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1-R3 )
(BY SRI F.V.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NOS.2
AND 3 TO INITIATE THE NECESSARY LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST THE RESPONDENT NO.4 IN PURSUANCE OF THE
REPRESENTATION VIDE ANNEXURES-E AND E1 TO THE WRIT
PETITION AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 TO
APPOINT THE ADMINISTRATOR OR RECEIVER FOR THE
MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF HAVYAK
VIDYAVARDAKA SANGHA KUMTA THE RESPONDENT NO.4 TILL
THE NEWLY ELECTED BODY TAKES THE CHARGE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING-
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, THE COURT,
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In this writ petition, the petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:
I. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to initiate the 3 necessary legal proceedings against the respondent No.4 in pursuance of the representation vide Annexures-E and E1 to the writ petition.
II. Direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to appoint the administrator or receiver for the management and administration of Havyak Vidyavardaka Sangha, Kumta-the respondent no.4 till the newly elected body takes the charge in accordance with law.
2. Heard Sri S.V.Yaji and Sri Harsh Desai, advocates for the petitioners and Sri V.S.Kalasurmath, learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri F.V.Patil, learned counsel for the 4th respondent.
3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions put forth in the memorandum of writ petition and referring to the documents produced by the petitioners, learned counsel for petitioners submits that 4 the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have not taken any steps pursuant to the petitioners representations at Annexures-E and E-1 dated 11.10.2015 and 19.02.2015 respectively apart from the fact that respondent No.4- The Havyak Vidyavardhaka Sangh, Kumta has not conducted elections for the past 20 years and has not maintained accounts and as such, the petitioners are before this Court by way of the present petition.
4. Per Contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.4, in addition to reiterating the various contentions put forth in the statement of objections submits that the 4th respondent-The Havyak Vidyavardhaka Sangh, Kumta is governed by the provisions of the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920 (for short, 'the CRT Act, 1920') and not by either the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (for short, 'the BPT Act, 1950') or the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowment Act, 1997 (for short, 'the KHRICE Act, 1997') and 5 consequently, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 who are authorities functioning under the KHRICE Act, 1997 do not have any jurisdiction or authority of law to take any steps/action pursuant to the aforesaid representations of the petitioners. It is also submitted that by virtue of State Government Circular dated 19.03.2004, the KHRICE Act, 1997 is not applicable to respondent No.4- The Havyak Vidyavardhaka Sangh, Mukta and consequently, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. Though the several contentions have been urged by both sides with regard to applicability/non- applicability of the CRT Act, 1920, the BPT Act, 1950 and the KHRICE Act, 1997, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions, in the light of the undisputed fact that the representations at Annexure-E and E-1 submitted by the petitioners to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have not been considered and no orders has been passed on the same sofar, I deem it 6 just and appropriate to dispose off this writ petition by directing the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to consider the representations of the petitioners and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after notifying both the petitioners as well as respondent No.4 and hearing them within a stipulated time frame.
6. In the result, I pass the following :
ORDER Petition is hereby disposed off. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to consider the representations of the petitioners at Annexure-E and E-1 in accordance with law after notifying the petitioners as well as the 4th respondent and after hearing them by granting them sufficient opportunity to put forth their all contentions including jurisdiction, applicability/non- applicability of the CRT Act, 1920, the BPT Act, 1950 and the KHRICE Act, 1997 etc. 7 Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to notify both petitioners and respondent No.4 and complete the proceedings after hearing both petitioners and respondent No.4 within a period of three months from the date on which the petitioners and respondent No.4 appear before the concerned respondent.
Liberty is reserved in favour of petitioners and respondents to file pleadings and produce documents in the proceedings and also engage the services of a counsel to represent them All rival contentions including the contentions with regard to jurisdiction, applicability/non-applicability of any of the aforesaid enactments are kept open to be decided by respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Subject to the aforesaid directions, writ petition stands disposed of.
SD JUDGE CKK