Karnataka High Court
Sri.B.V.Anandalvar vs The Endowment Commissioner on 15 December, 2020
Author: P.B.Bajanthri
Bench: P.B. Bajanthri
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI
WRIT PETITION NO.54497 OF 2015 (GM-R/C)
BETWEEN:
SRI. B.V. ANANDALVAR,
S/O B.V. NARASIMHACHAR,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
ARCHAK, SRI. RAMNUJACHARYA SANNIDHI,
SRI. NARAYANASWAMI TEMPLE,
R/AT NO.327, RAJA STREET,
MELKOTE, PANDAVAPURA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571431 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. AJAY J. NANDALIKE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE ENDOWMENT COMMISSIONER,
HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION & CHARITABLE
ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
MANDYA DISTRICT,
MANDYA-571 401.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
PANDAVAPURA SUB-DIVISION,
MANDYA-571 401.
4. THE TAHSILDAR,
PANDAVAPURA-571 434.
2
5. THE TAHSILDAR,
SRIRANGAPATTANA-571 438.
6. SRI. T. LAKSHMINARAYANA,
ADVOCATE,
ANAND COMPLEX,
PANDAVAPURA,
MANDYA-571 434.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. LAXMINARAYAN, AGA FOR R1 TO R5;
SRI. ABHINAV .R, ADVOCATE FOR KUMAR & KUMAR FOR R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED PROCEEDING DATED 7.8.2015 INITIATED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"1. Issue a writ in the nature of a Certiorari thereby quashing the impugned proceeding bearing No.ADM-7-PTN-10/2015-16 vide dated 7/8/2015 st initiated by the 1 respondent (Annexure-A); and
2. Consequently, issue a writ in the nature of a Certiorari thereby quashing any further proceeding in furtherance of the impugned proceeding bearing No.ADM-7-PTN-10/2015-16, initiated by the 1st respondent (Annexure-A) 3
3. pass any such order/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit;"
2. The petitioner is an Archak of Sri Ramanujacharya Sannidhi being one of Sannidhi (smaller temple) surrounded by Sri Cheluvanarayana Swamy Temple Melkote, Mandya District.
3. Sixth respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner before first respondent on 30.07.2015 making allegations that petitioner is demanding money from the general public and had misappropriated the temple property including gold and silver ornaments. Pursuant to sixth respondent's complaint, first respondent issued show-cause notice to the petitioner by initiating the proceedings under Section 50 read with Section 69B of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1997' for short).
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the show- cause notice issued under Section 50 read with Section 69B of the Act, 1997, petitioner has presented this petition. 4
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Section 69B was incorporated in the Act, 1997 by means of amendment called Act No.27/2011 on 04.05.2011. Sixth respondent's complaint is in respect of violation of Section 69B of the Act, 1997 whereas, the impugned notice was issued under Section 50 read with Section 69B of the Act, 1997. Amendment of Section 69B to the Act was the subject matter of W.P. Nos.64805-64868/2011 and connected matters before this Court. This Court had struck down the amendment to aforesaid Section 69B of the Act on 17.11.2015. In this background, impugned notice dated 07.08.2015 is liable to be set aside. Writ petition No.54497/2015 was allowed on 09.12.2015. Consequently, Writ Appeal No.1945/2016 was presented and it was disposed of while restoring the present writ petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Apex Court granted interim order staying the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.64805- 64868/2011. Further, it is submitted that unless and until the Division Bench judgment is struck down by the Apex Court, Section 69B of the Act would not operate. In support of this 5 contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following orders/judgments:
1. Order dated 17.11.2015 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. Nos.64805-
64868/2011 and connected matters
2. Interim order dated 18.04.2016 passed by the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (C) CC Nos.6834-6959/2016 staying the operation of impugned order dated 17.11.2015
3. Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. Vs. Church of South India Trust Association CSI Cinod Secretariat, Madras reported in (1992) 3 SCC 1 (paragraph No.10)
4. State of Assam Vs. Barak Upatyaka D.U. Karmachari Sanstha reported in (2009) 5 SCC 694. (Paragraph No.21)
5. Niranjan Chatterjee & Ors. Vs State of West Bengal & Ors reported in 2007 SCC Online Cal
283. (Paragraph Nos.14, 17 and 20) 6
6. Pijush Kanti Chowdhury Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. Reported in 2007 SCC Online Cal
267. (Paragraph No.10)
7. Kolkata Municipal Corporation Vs ST.
Josephs and Mary's School & Anr reported in 2004 SCC Online Cal 652. (Paragraph No.11)
7. Per contra, State counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5 resisted the contention of the petitioner and submitted that there is no impediment in continuing the enquiry and it may be ordered that such enquiry be subject to the outcome of the decision of the Apex Court to be passed in CC. Nos.6834-6959/2016. It is also submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner had questioned the validity of the notice. The petitioner has opportunity of filing explanation to the show-cause notice including the validity of Section 69B of the Act
8. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 submitted that complaint-Annexure-C, it is not only relating to the allegations under Section 69B of the Act, it also includes offence under Sections 3 and 50 of the Act. Thus, there is no hurdle to initiate the enquiry in terms of impugned notice at Annexure-A and it is 7 not only an offence under Section 69B of the Act, but it includes offence under Section 3 of the Act relating to mis-appropriation of temple funds including gold and silver ornaments. Consequently, petitioner has not made out a case so as to interfere with the impugned notice at Annexure-A. That apart, the Apex Court has stayed the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
10. Questions for consideration in the present petition are:
a) Whether impugned notice at Annexure-A dated 07.08.2015 could be interfered or not?
b) Further, what is the effect of granting interim order by the Apex Court in respect of striking down the Section 69B of the Act?
11. The Apex Court in the case of Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd, has held in paragraph No.10 as under:-
"10: In the instant case, the proceedings before the Board under Sections 15 and 16 of the Act had been terminated by order of the Board dated April 26, 1990 whereby the Board, upon consideration of the facts and material before it, found that the appellant-
company had become economically and 8 commercially non-viable due to its huge accumulated losses and liabilities and should be wound up. The appeal filed by the appellant-company under Section 25 of the Act against said order of the Board was dismissed by the Appellate Athority by order dated January 7, 1991. As a result of these orders, no proceedings under the Act were pending either before the Board or before the Appellate Authority on February 21, 1991 when the Delhi High Court passed the interim order staying the operation of the order of the Appellate Authority dated January 7, 1991. The said stay order of the High Court cannot have the effect of reviving the proceedings which had been disposed of by the Appellate Authority by its order dated January 7, 1991. While considering the effect of an interim order staying the operation of the order under challenge, a distinction has to be made between quashing of an order and stay of operation of an order. Quashing of an order results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date of the passing of the order which has been quashed. The stay of operation of an order does not, however, lead to such a result. It only means that the order which has been stayed would not be operative from the date of the passing of the stay order and it does not mean that the said order has been wiped out from existence. This means that if an order passed by the Appellate Authority is quashed 9 and the matter is remanded, the result would be that the appeal which had been disposed of by the said order of the Appellate Authority would be restored and it can be said to be pending before the Appellate Authority after the quashing of the order of the Appellate Authority. The same cannot be said with regard to an order staying the operation of the order of the Appellate Authority because in spite of the said order, the order of the Appellate Authority continues to exist in law so long as it exists, it cannot be said that the appeal which has been disposed of by the said order has not been disposed of and is still pending. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the passing of the interim order dated February 21, 1991 by the Delhi High Court staying the operation of the order of the Appellate Authority dated January 7, 1991 does not have the effect of reviving the appeal which had been dismissed by the Appellate Authority by its order dated January 7, 1991 and it cannot be said that after February 21, 1991, the said appeal stood revived and was pending before the Appellate Authority. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that any proceedings under the Act were pending before the Board or the Appellate Authority on the date of the passing of the order dated August 14, 1991 by the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court for winding up of the company or on November 6, 1991 when the 10 Division Bench passed the order dismissing O.S.A. No. 16 of 1991 filed by the appellant-company against the order of the learned Single Judge dated August 14, 1991. Section 22(1) of the Act could not, therefore, be invoked and there was no impediment in the High Court dealing with the winding up petition filed by the respondents. This is the only question that has been canvassed in Civil Appeal No. 126 of 1992, directed against the order for winding up of the appellant-company. The said appeal, therefore, fails and is liable to be dismissed."
12. The other citations relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner are identical to that of Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd case. In the aforesaid case, the principle laid down is, what is the effect of interim order and quashing of an order. Quashing of an order would mean restoration of original position whereas, the interim order is only a temporary arrangement.
13. In the present case, petitioner has questioned the validity of show-cause notice. Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Another Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28 has held that under Article 226, the writ Court cannot entertain the 11 writ against the show-cause notice unless and until it is passed by an incompetent authority or contrary to law.
14. In the present case, petitioner has pointed out that Division Bench of this Court struck down the amendment to Section 69B of the Act. Consequently, if an interim order is granted by the Apex Court that does not mean respondent No.1 cannot proceed pursuant to Annexure-A. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that there is no harm in continuing the proceedings in terms of Annexure-A. However, enquiry could be completed and kept subject to outcome of the decision in the Apex Court in the CC. Nos.6834-6959/2016.
15. Counsel for respondent No.6 pointed out that other than offences under Section 69B of the Act, the complainant has pointed out the offences under Sections 3 and 50 of the Act.
16. Respondent No.1 is permitted to segregate the offences and proceed in accordance with law. Insofar as offences under Section 69B of the Act is concerned, respondent No.1 is directed not to pass the final order. The same shall be finalized after the decision is passed in the CC. Nos.6834-6959/2016. The 12 aforesaid proceedings shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
17. The petitioner is at liberty to file his explanation to show-cause notice with reference to complaint made by respondent No.6.
With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE MBM