Karnataka High Court
Lakshminarayana Mogeraya vs The Commissioner on 18 November, 2022
Author: B. Veerappa
Bench: B. Veerappa
-1-
WP No. 50755 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
WRIT PETITION NO.50755 OF 2019 (GM-R/C)
BETWEEN:
1. LAKSHMINARAYANA MOGERAYA
S/O K KRISHNA MOGERAYA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
RESIDING AT VANI NILAYA
KARJALU KALLABETTU POST
MOODABIDRI
MANGALORE TALUK-574 144
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI AJITH A. SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
HINDU RELIGIOUS AND ENDOWMENTS
CHAMARAJPET
Digitally signed by
USHA BENGALURU-560 018
NAGENAHALLI
SHANMUKHAPPA
Location: High
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
Court of Karnataka HINDU RELIGIOUS AND ENDOWMENTS
MANGALURU
D K DISTRICT-575 001
-2-
WP No. 50755 of 2019
3. THE ZILLA DHARMIKA PARISHATH
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT MANGALURU
D K DISTRICT-575 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
4. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
SRI DURGA PARAMESHWARI TEMPLE,
SRIKSHETHRA, IRUVAIL, MANGALURU TALUK, D K
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
TOWN MUNICIPALITY
MOODABIDRI-574 144
5. THE MANAGING COMMITTEE
SRI DURGA PARAMESHWARI TEMPLE
SRIKSHETHRA, IRUVAIL-574 144
MANGALURU TALUK, D K
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
6. SRI RAGHAVENDRA BHAT @ RAGHAVENDRA ASRANNA
S/O SRI VASUDEVA BHAT
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
LAKSHMINARAYANA KRIPA
NEAR SRI DURGA PARAMESHWARI TEMPLE
IRUVAILU-574 144
MANGALURU TALUK, D K DISTRICT
...RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI I. THARANATH POOJARY, SENIOR COUNSEL,
ALONG WITH SRI ROHIT URS D., ADVOCATE, FOR R-5;
SRI UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL, ALONG WITH
SRI RAJENDRA M.S., ADVOCATE, FOR R-6;
GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & 2 (ABSENT);
SMT. SADHANA DESAI, ADVOCATE, FOR R-3
(VAKALATH NOT FILED), AND
SRI K. CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADVOCATE, FOR R-4
(ABSENT)]
-3-
WP No. 50755 of 2019
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO RECALL
THE ORDER DATED 18-10-2019 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE
COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.9233 OF 2017 AS PER
ANNEXURE-A, AND OTHERS.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner claiming to be appointed as one of the two Priests in Shree Durgaparameshwari Temple, Srikshethra, Iruvail, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada, (for short, 'temple') is before this Court for a writ of certiorari to recall the order dated 18-10-2019 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.9233 of 2017 as per Annexure-A; to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned consequential order dated 8-11-2019 passed by respondent No.4-Administrative Officer of the temple, as per Annexure-B, resultantly continuing the petitioner's services as 'Pradhaana Archaka' of revered Shree Durgaparameshwari Temple, Iruvail Village, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada, and to issue writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.1 to 4 to initiate appropriate enquiry against respondent Nos.5 and 6 for -4- WP No. 50755 of 2019 their combined act of portraying a settlement between respondent No.6 and a non-existing Committee.
I. Facts of the case
2. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed in the place of respondent No.6- Sri Raghavendra Bhat @ Raghavendra Asranna by virtue of unanimous resolution dated 26-4-2017 passed by the then Managing Committee and ever since then, he has been performing his duties as a Pradhaana Archaka with utmost dedication and piety. The fact that respondent No.6 had tendered his voluntary resignation to the then Managing Committee is apparent from a letter dated 4-3-2017 submitted by the then Managing Committee to the jurisdictional Police Station, which clearly mentions that said resignation has been given voluntarily. Appointment of the petitioner as Pradhaana Archaka has been intimated through a communication dated 19-6-2017. The petitioner has tendered diligent service is apparent from endorsement dated 20-5-2019 issued by the then Managing Committee. The Management of the temple is paying salary to the petitioner on monthly basis for performing -5- WP No. 50755 of 2019 pooja as Pradhaana Archaka. It is further submitted that none of these facts were ever mentioned by respondent No.6 in Writ Petition No.9233 of 2017 filed by him. In fact, respondent No.6 had not even impleaded the petitioner in the said writ petition, in spite of being aware of the fact that the petitioner would definitely be affected by the order passed in the said writ petition. Interestingly, the then Managing Committee of the temple had also thought it fit to keep the petitioner in dark about the said writ proceedings. However, the petitioner now learns that the said writ petition was strongly opposed by the then Managing Committee and had even convinced this Court against granting of any interim order which would have altered the ground situation in any manner whatsoever. The fact that the then Managing Committee had opposed respondent No.6 attempts to gain re-entry into the temple is manifestation of the general intent of the villagers, who have no faith in respondent No.6. Relevant to mention herein is the fact that even 'Ashtha Mangala Prashne', a ritual from time immemorial had also yielded answer that respondent No.6 should never be handed priesthood in the revered temple.
-6-WP No. 50755 of 2019
3. It is further contended that it was quite shocking for the petitioner to have realised that respondent No.6 had reached unto some sort of tacit understanding with the then Managing Committee which was presented as 'terms of settlement' before this Court and this Court persuaded to allow the said writ petition based on such understanding. An alarming fact which needs to be brought to the kind attention of this Court is that as on date when the alleged settlement was reached unto between the then Managing Committee and respondent No.6, the former did not exist at all. The then Managing Committee was elected and then declared as having been elected by virtue of order dated 7-6-2016 passed by respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner. The tenure of such Committee was confined to three years from such date and was to end on 8-6-2019. From facts narrated above, non-existent Committee had reported to this Court that a settlement had been reached with respondent No.6. Apart from being illegal, the same would clearly amounts to an act of fraud played by individual involved upon this Court. The petitioner, being aggrieved by such order, has preferred this writ petition. -7- WP No. 50755 of 2019
II. Statement of objections filed by respondent No.6
4. Respondent No.6 in the present petition was the petitioner in Writ Petition No.9233 of 2017. He has filed objections and contended that the present writ petition filed is wholly false, frivolous and the same has been filed with sole intention of harassing him. Writ petition lacks bonafide and is liable to be rejected. The petitioner does not have any locus standi to maintain the present petition and hence, he prays for rejection. It is further contended that respondent No.6 is a Chief Archaka of the temple. Even though, he has been rendering his service as the Chief Archaka and a hereditary Trustee of the temple without any complaints for the last twenty years, few persons inimically disposed towards him and some others with malafide intention of usurping the Archakship gave false complaint to the Managing Committee resulting in obstruction to him performing his duties. Hence, he approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.9233 of 2017 on 27-2-2017. It is thereafter, with the sole intention of defeating his right and based on the false complaint, a resolution dated 26-4-2017 was passed by the Managing Committee appointing the petitioner to -8- WP No. 50755 of 2019 perform pooja at the temple for a period of fifteen days a month. In terms of the said resolution, the petitioner has been appointed to perform only pooja at the temple temporarily and the same was only interim measure. The said resolution does not either take away the rights of him, who has been the Chief Archaka and Managing Trustee for the last twenty years, or creates any rights in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner does not have any legal right and the locus standi to maintain the present writ petition and it is not open for the petitioner to challenge the order passed by this Court on 18-10-2019 in Writ Petition No.9233 of 2017. It is further contended that initially, one Sri Narayan Asranna was the Trustee of the temple and he was entrusted with the duty of Archakship. Thereafter, on an application filed by his grand-father, namely Sri Rama Asranna, vide order dated 6-3-1953, he was appointed as the hereditary Trustee of the temple. Since Sri Rama Asranna had no male issues, he adopted his daughter's son, i.e. respondent No.6 as his son, as per the Hindu Customs and Rituals. Upon death of Sri Rama Ashranna, respondent No.6 took upon himself the duty of Archaka of the temple and has since been carrying out -9- WP No. 50755 of 2019 the duties of Archaka. On commencement of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997, the temple was notified under the Act and on 3-8-2007, respondent No.6 was appointed as a member of the Managing Committee of the temple and he was also performing the duties of Archaka and was appointed as Trustee of the temple. In fact, for the services rendered by respondent No.6 as Archaka and member of the Managing Committee, he had been paid on monthly remuneration. It is further contended that respondent No.6 being Chief Archaka and Managing Trustee of the temple has been rendering unblemished service to the temple for the last twenty years. There have been no complaints whatsoever as against him. However, few of the members of the Managing Committee based on the false complaint by interested parties as aforementioned and who had animosity against respondent No.6 started interfering with the functions and duties of respondent No.6 and it is at that stage, respondent No.6 approached this Court in Writ Petition No.9233 of 2017 seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents therein not to interfere with the duties, services and functioning of respondent
- 10 -
WP No. 50755 of 2019No.6. As stated above, the said writ petition was filed on 27-2-2017. It is thereafter with the sole intention of defeating the rights of respondent No.6, the Managing Committee passed a resolution dated 26-4-2017 appointing the petitioner to perform pooja for fifteen days a month. That apart, on 4-3-2017, a letter was also addressed by the Managing Committee to Moodabidri Police Station, falsely contending that respondent No.6 has resigned from the post of Chief Archaka on 25-6-2016. Respondent No.6 never resigned as being the Chief Archaka and with the sole intention of harassing respondent No.6 and to defeat his rights, the Managing Committee started contending that respondent No.6 has given up the post of Chief Archaka, which is wholly false. Even though there were no complaints against respondent No.6, the Managing Committee having not been satisfied, passed a resolution on 1-6-2019 initiating enquiry against respondent No.6 and one Sri Yogesh Shetty, Advocate, was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. Subsequent thereto, a detailed enquiry was held against respondent No.6 by the Enquiry Officer under Rule 17 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable
- 11 -
WP No. 50755 of 2019Endowments Rules, 2002, and a final order dated 12-7-2019 was passed by the Enquiry Officer holding that charges leveled against respondent No.6 are not proved. The order passed by the Enquiry Officer was placed before this Court in Writ Petition No.9233 of 2017 and this Court having taken note of the same allowed the writ petition and directed respondent No.4- Managing Committee therein not to interfere with the functioning of respondent No.6 as Archaka/Priest of Shree Durgaparameshwari Temple, Srikshethra, Iruvail, without due process of law and it was made clear that if respondent No.6 involves in any illegal activity in his capacity as Archaka/Priest and member of the Managing Committee and obstruct the pooja of the temple, it is always open for respondent No.4- Managing Committee therein to take action against the respondent in accordance with law.
4.1 It is further contended that the allegation that the present petitioner whose forefathers were Priests in the temple by lineage was appointed in place of respondent No.6 by virtue of unanimous resolution dated 26-4-2017 passed by the then Managing Committee and ever since then, he has been
- 12 -
WP No. 50755 of 2019performing his duties as 'Pradhanna Archaka' with utmost dedication and piety is false. The further allegation is that respondent No.6 had tendered his voluntary resignation to the then Managing Committee is apparent from a letter dated 4-3-2017 submitted by the then Managing Committee to jurisdictional Police Station which clearly mentions the said resignation given voluntarily is false and other allegations made in the present writ petition has been denied as false and sought to dismiss the writ petition by imposing exemplary costs.
5. None appear for the State, or has filed the statement of objections. This is the state of affairs when serious and important matters are posted before this Court.
6. Though the name of Smt. Sadhana Desai, learned counsel, is shown as appearing for respondent No.3, but she has not filed her vakalatnama.
7. None appear for respondent No.4.
- 13 -
WP No. 50755 of 2019III. Statement of objections filed by respondent No.5- Managing Committee
8. Respondent No.5-Managing Committee, Shree Durgaparameshwari Temple is represented by the President. The erstwhile President has filed statement of objections and contented that respondent No.6 was hereditary Archaka and also a member of the Managing Committee of the temple filed Writ Petition No.9233 of 2017 making certain allegations against the Managing Committee of the temple and sought for a mandamus to direct the respondents in the said writ petition not to interfere with his duties, services and functions as the hereditary Archaka and member of the Managing Committee of the said temple. During pendency of the said writ petition, taking into consideration the allegations leveled against it, the Managing Committee in its meeting held on 1-6-2019 resolved to appoint Sri Yogesh Shetty Mudabidri, Advocate, as Enquiry Officer to hold an enquiry against respondent No.6. The Enquiry Officer, after conducting enquiry submitted the report holding that charges leveled against respondent No.6 are not proved. It is further contended at paragraph No.6.1 that in order to ascertain the genuineness of the allegation made against
- 14 -
WP No. 50755 of 2019respondent No.6, the Managing Committee had appointed Enquiry Officer and in the enquiry report, the Enquiry Officer has absolved respondent No.6 of all the allegations and on the basis of that report, this Court allowed Writ Petition No.9233 of 2017 filed by respondent No.6 and the same has not been challenged by the Management. It is further contended at paragraph No.6.2 that respondent No.6 had stayed away from performing pooja and rituals in the temple on the teeth of allegations surfaced against him and as a result, the petitioner herein was appointed along with other Archaka Sri Vishwanath Bhat to perform pooja in terms of the resolution of the Managing Committee dated 26-4-2017. The said arrangement was merely on part time and on temporary basis. The other allegations made against the Managing Committee are denied.
IV. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner
9. Sri Ajith S. Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition, has contended that the orders impugned are ex-facie the result of an act of fraud played deliberately by respondent No.6 and
- 15 -
WP No. 50755 of 2019certain unknown individuals, who portrayed themselves as a Managing Committee of the temple. He places reliance on the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RAM PREETI YADAV v. U.P. BOARD OF HIGH SCHOOL & INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION AND OTHERS reported in JT 2003 (SUPP.1) SC 25, wherein it is held that 'fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which induces the other person, or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of former either by words or letter. Although negligence is not fraud, but it can be evidence on fraud'. He also relied upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.P. CHENGALVARAYA NAIDU v. JAGANNATH reported in 1994 (1) SCC 1, wherein it is observed that 'fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal. An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously'. He has further referred few other judgments to the same effect and contended that there was a settlement between the petitioner and respondent No.4 therein in Writ Petition No.9233 of 2017 and the same was accepted by this Court. Therefore,
- 16 -
WP No. 50755 of 2019he sought to recall the order dated 18-10-2019 passed in Writ Petition No.9233 of 2017.
V. Arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel for respondent No.6
10. Per contra, Sri Uday Holla, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.6, reiterating the grounds urged in the objections, has contended that respondent No.6 was working as Chief Archaka and a hereditary Trustee of the temple and on the allegation made by some of the individuals, the Management initiated enquiry and the Enquiry Officer, after holding enquiry submitted his report that allegations made against respondent No.6 are not proved and based on the report, this Court allowed Writ Petition No.9233 of 2017 and issued directions to the Management not to interfere with the functioning of respondent No.6 as Archaka and member of the Managing Committee of the temple without due process of law. He further contended that except the petitioner producing Annexure-D (where the Managing Committee resolves to appoint the petitioner as one among two Archakas of the temple), he has not produced any other document to show
- 17 -
WP No. 50755 of 2019removal of respondent No.6 before this Court, or to prove the allegation in the writ petition. The writ petition is filed only to harass respondent No.6 and for wasting precious time of the Court. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the writ petition with costs.
VI. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for respondent No.5
11. Sri I. Tharanath Poojary, learned senior counsel along with Sri Rohit Urs D., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5, reiterating the grounds urged in the objections, has contended that the Enquiry Officer has given a clean chit to respondent No.6 and thereafter, respondent No.6 was continued to work in the temple as Archaka. Appointment of the petitioner (Annexure-D dated 26-4-2017) as one among two Archakas was only a part-time and on temporary basis. After few days of his appointment, the petitioner himself lost interest and left the job. As on the date of filing objections, the petitioner was not working and the same is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.
- 18 -
WP No. 50755 of 2019VII. Points for determination
12. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, the points that would arise for my consideration are:
i. Whether the petitioner has made out a case to recall the order dated 18-10-2019 passed in Writ Petition No.9233 of 2017?
ii. Whether the petitioner has made out a case to quash the impugned consequential order dated 8-11-2019 passed by respondent No.4-Authority and to continue the services of the petitioner as Pradhaana Archaka, and to issue writ of mandamus to respondent Nos.1 to 4 to initiate enquiry against respondent Nos.5 and 6 for illegal activities in the temple?
VIII. Consideration
13. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties to the lis and perused the material on record carefully.
14. In order to recall the order dated 18-10-2019 in Writ Petition No.9233 of 2017, first and foremost, the petitioner has
- 19 -
WP No. 50755 of 2019to show his rights to review the order passed by this Court. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he was appointed as one of the Archakas by the Management on 26-4-2017 as per Annexure-D. A careful perusal of the resolution at subject No.3, the petitioner was appointed as Archaka to perform pooja for fifteen days a month, but the resolution does not depicts the name of respondent No.6 at all. Admittedly, no document is produced by the petitioner or the State Government for approving appointment of the petitioner as Pradhaana Archaka of the temple of Muzrai Department, which is mandatory. Much reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the letter of the then Managing Committee dated 4-3-2017 as per Annexure-C to the effect that respondent No.6 himself left the temple stating he will not perform pooja of the temple and handed over the keys to the Management. In the resolution dated 26-4-2017 as per Annexure-D, they have never stated that the petitioner was appointed by removing respondent No.6. Even assuming the said letter is true, the very President, who filed objections before this Court, has not supported the petitioner and thereby, Annexure-C cannot be
- 20 -
WP No. 50755 of 2019relied upon. One more document relied upon by the petitioner is that of letter dated 8-11-2019 passed by respondent No.4- Admistrative Officer of the temple stating that the Managing Committee should not interfere with the functioning of respondent No.6 as Archaka and he will resume to his work from 9-11-2019. The said letter passed by respondent No.4 is an intimation to respondent No.6 and others based on the orders passed by this Court and the said letter does not give any right for the petitioner.
15. Though Sri Ajith A. Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended with vehemence that in view of the fraud played by respondent No.6 and the Managing Committee arriving at settlement, this Court passed order and he has placed reliance on the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but the fact remains that the petitioner is not able to show the fraud played by respondent No.6, or the Management. When respondent No.6 and the Management have filed objections denying all the averments in the writ petition and specifically contended that the petitioner was
- 21 -
WP No. 50755 of 2019appointed on part-time and temporary basis, the same is depicted at Annexure-D.
16. A careful perusal of the material on record and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties depicts that the petitioner has neither produced any resolution passed on his behalf and against respondent No.6, nor has produced documents for submitting his resignation. Admittedly, objections filed by the Managing Committee is on 10-2-2021. At that time, the petitioner was not working at the temple. In the absence of any right to seek for recalling the order, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed with costs.
17. In so far as prayer No.2 with regard to quashing of order dated 8-11-2019 passed by respondent No.4 is concerned, when an order intimating the concerned to comply with the orders passed by this Court, there is no adverse order against him and even presuming to be there, it is a separate cause of action and such a prayer cannot be granted, when he
- 22 -
WP No. 50755 of 2019has sought to recall the order dated 18-10-2019 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.9233 of 2017.
18. In so far as prayer No.3 is concerned directing respondent Nos.1 to 4 to initiate enquiry against respondent Nos.5 and 6, again it is different cause of action. Careful reading of the entire pleadings in the writ petition, there is no such representation and in the absence of demand, no mandamus can be issued unless to show statutory enforcement of right and thereby, prayer No.3 is also rejected.
IX. Conclusion
19. When the matter is specially posted before this Court and when this Court has taken so much pains and when the petitioner has not made out any case, at least prima- facie case to interfere, it is nothing but wasting public time and to harass both respondent Nos.5 and 6. At the same time, it is also observed that respondent No.5-Managing Committee is also not properly discharging its duties. Unfortunately, the State Government is a silent spectator sitting on the fence in spite of allegations between the petitioner and respondent No.6 and further, when the temple is meant for devotees, the people in
- 23 -
WP No. 50755 of 2019the guise of authorities or Archakas cannot misuse temple funds for personal gains. It is high time for the State Government for protecting the faith and devotion of people to take proper steps and cannot sit like a silent spectator on the fence and thereby, giving room for unnecessary litigation. The Government should act as a societal parent and it should not act as one sided or bias.
20. It is well settled that the State Government and its Authorities acting under the Constitution is under constitutional duty coupled with power. Every Government is a trustee of the society and in all facets of public administration, every Government has to exhibit honesty, integrity, sincerity and faithfulness in implementation of the political, social, economic and constitutional policies to integrate the nation, to achieve excellence and efficiency in the public administration. Government which is entrusted with duty and power to implement constitutional policy under Articles 14, 21 and 300 and all inter-related directive principles of state policy under the Constitution, should exhibit transparency in implementation and of accountable for due effectuation of constitutional goals.
- 24 -
WP No. 50755 of 2019
21. In view of the above, point No.1 raised in the writ petition is answered against the petitioner and he has not made out any case to recall the order dated 18-10-2019 passed in Writ Petition No.9233 of 2017. Accordingly, point No.2 is also answered in negative holding that the petitioner has not made out any case to quash the order dated 8-11-2019 passed by respondent No.4-Administrative Officer of the temple, or to issue mandamus. The writ petition is devoid of merits.
X. Result
22. In view of the above, I pass the following order:
a. The writ petition is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) payable by the petitioner to the Advocates' Association, Moodabidri, within four weeks' from today and submit acknowledgement before the Registry of this Court, failing which, list this matter for taking further action;
- 25 -WP No. 50755 of 2019
b. The order dated 18-10-2019 passed in Writ Petition No.9233 of 2017 is hereby confirmed, and c. A copy of this order be sent to Moodabidri Bar Association.
In view of the dismissal of the main writ petition, pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration and they are accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE KVK