Karnataka High Court
Sri Narasimha Prasad M S vs State Of Karnataka on 28 September, 2022
Author: Krishna S.Dixit
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.19501 OF 2022 (GM-R/C)
BETWEEN:
SRI. NARASIMHA PRASAD M.S.,
S/O M.S. SRINIVAS,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
RESIDING AT:
SARANGAPANI TEMPLE STREET
KOTE, MALAVALLI
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 430
AND ALSO AT (OLD ADDRESS):
AT NO.1384, 4TH CROSS,
KRISHNAMURTHYPURAM,
MYSURU - 570 008.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. JANARDHANA G, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
MINSITRY OF MUZRAI,
REP BY ITS SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGLAURU - 560 001.
2 . THE COMMISSIONER
RELIGIOUS CHARITABLE ENDOWNMENTS COMMISSON
AND APPELLETE AUTHORITY
4TH FLOOR, SREE MINITO
ANAHAYANSWAMY BHAVANA
2
ALUR VENKAT RAO ROAD,
CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU - 560 018.
3 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MANDYA DISTRICT
MANDYA - 571 401.
4 . SATHYANARAYANA,
S/O THELEATE KRISHNA BHAT,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
5 . SRI KRISHNA PRASAD M S
S/IO SATHYANARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
BOTH NOS.4 & 5 RESIDING AT:
MAREHALLI VILLAGE
MALAVALLI TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 430.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.V. KRISHNA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE STAY ORDER GRANTED BY THE R2 ON 12.08.2022 IN
APPEAL NO.ADM-7-AP-13/22.23(E-854184) VIDE ANNEXURE-F;
AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner claiming to be a functioning Archak of the temple in question is invoking Writ Jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the interim order of stay dated 12.08.2022 3 (Annexure G) granted by the second respondent in the subject appeal filed by the Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 herein. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that his client had filed the caveat and despite that the impugned order is made without hearing him and therefore the same is liable to be voided.
2. Learned AGA on request appearing for the official respondents opposes the petition contending that ordinarily, Writ Courts do not grant indulgence where challenge is laid to the discretionary orders and more particularly, when they are by way of interim arrangement. He also points out that it is open to the petitioner to move an application before the Appellate Authority for vacating the impugned order and that it would be expeditiously considered, in accordance with law.
3. Learned AGA repels the contention of petitioner that he having filed caveat ought to have been heard in the 4 matter before making the impugned order and the one made without notifying to the caveator is non est. He hastens to add that there is no specific provision in the Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 providing for lodging of the caveat. So contending he seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this court declines indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the contention of learned AGA. Firstly, interim orders of the kind do not merit a deeper examination at the hands of Writ Court exercising a limited supervisory jurisdiction constitutionally vested under Article 227 vide SADHNA LODH vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY 2003 5 SCC
548. It hardly needs to be stated that the impugned order is made in discretion vested in the Appellate Authority under the provisions of the 1997 Act. Secondly, it is open to the petitioner to seeks its variation or vacating. 5
5. The vehement submission of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 having been adopted vide section 65 of the 1997 Act, his client a priori has a right to lodge the caveat and accordingly he had lodged one, is bit difficult to countenance. Section 65 reads as under:
"65. Civil Procedure Code to apply to Proceedings under the Act.- Save in so far as they are inconsistent with anything contained in this Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil procedure, 1908 shall apply to all proceedings under this Act."
6. Firstly, the provisions of CPC as such are not adopted by referential incorporation in the 1997 Act. The section makes it very clear that the provisions of CPC shall apply to all proceedings under the Act. What it means is, the procedure prescribed by the provisions of CPC would be followed in the proceedings taken under the provision of 1997 Act and nothing more. This view gains support from the observations of the Apex Court in JYOTI BASU vs. DEBI GHOSAL, AIR 1982 SC 983.
6
7. A statutory proceeding being regulated by the provisions of CPC does not mean the right to lodge caveat as provided under section 148(A) therein would avail to the proceedings under the special enactment like the 1997 Act. Right to lodge a caveat though availing under the provisions of CPC is not a procedural right but a substantive one, arguably on par with the right of appeal. Such a right cannot be inferred from the text of Sec.65 of the 1997 Act. This Court hastens to add that had the authority which passed the impugned order been a Civil Court, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner arguably could have merited a favourable consideration. It hardly needs to be stated the proceedings in appeal are essentially quasi judicial in nature and thus are different from pure civil proceedings.
8. Generally wherever legislature intends to provide for lodging of caveat, there will be such a provision either in the statute or in the subordinate legislation that may be 7 made by the delegate. Such a provision avails in the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal Regulations, 1979. Neither 1997 Act nor the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions & Charitable Endowment Rules, 2002 provide for lodging of caveat even by inference.
In the above circumstances, petition being devoid of merits is liable to be rejected and accordingly it is, reserving liberty to the petitioner to move an application before the Appellate Authority for vacating the impugned order of stay. All contentions in that regard are kept open. If such an application is made, the same shall be heard & decided within an outer limit of two weeks.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE DS