Karnataka High Court
Sri Manjunatha Archaka vs The Rajyadharmikaparishat on 1 June, 2017
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S. Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION NO.6757/2017 (GM-R/C)
BETWEEN:
SRI. MANJUNATHA ARCHAKA
S/O.SHESHAYYA ARCHAKA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT.HATTIYANGADI
KUNDAPURA TALUK
UDUPI DISTRICT - 576283 ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.NAGARAJA HEGDE, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE RAJYADHARMIKAPARISHAT
2ND FLOOR, SRI.MALEMAHADESHWARA
VARTABHAVAN, ALURVENKATARAO ROAD
CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE - 560 018
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE
ENDOWMENTS & PRESIDENT
ZILLA DHARMIKA PARISHAT
UDUPI
UDUPI DISTRICT-576101
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE
2
ENDOWMENTS & PRESIDENT
UDUPI
UDUPI DISTRICT-5765101 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VIKAS M. FOR
SRI. B.S.SACHIN, ADV., FOR R1;
SRI.LAKSHMINAYAYANA, AGA FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DTD:1.2.2017 PASSED BY THE R-1
WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE- A AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this court assailing the order dated 01.02.2017 as at Annexure-A to the petition. The petitioner in that light is seeking issue of mandamus to direct first respondent to pass orders and dispose of the petition on merits by complying the order passed in W.P.No.3868/2013. The petitioner has filed an application/petition before first respondent under Section 20(A)(1)(b) of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997, seeking that the 3 Marala Devi temple, Hattiyangadi, be de-notified. The said application has been filed on 27.06.2012.
2. At an earlier point in time, when the petitioner had certain grievances, he was before this court in W.P.No.3868/2017 which was disposed of on 24.01.2013. Subsequent thereto the proceedings before first respondent is being conducted. In the course of the proceedings, on 01.02.2017 the first respondent in addition to taking note of position of the proceedings had adjourned it for consideration and has also directed that public notice be issued. The petitioner therefore, claiming to be aggrieved by that portion of the order wherein the public notice is ordered is assailing the same in this petition.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and learned Government Advocate, I have perused the petition papers.
4
4. From the records it is noticed that since the petitioner claims that the temple in question is to be de- notified, the first respondent in that light has ordered issue of public notification so as to find out whether any other person has objection to consider the case of the petitioner. If such proceeding is adopted by the first respondent, the petitioner cannot certainly have any grievance as the first respondent before arriving at a conclusion is required to take steps to ensure the status of the temple and in that light to consider the application made by the petitioner. Therefore, sofar as the challenge made to the order dated 01.02.2017, I see no reason to interfere.
5. Needless to mention that the first respondent shall consider and dispose of the petition in an expeditious manner and while doing so shall also keep in view the consideration made by this court in the earlier petition in W.P.No.3868/2013 dated 24.1.2013 and conclude the proceedings in an expeditious manner but in 5 any event not later than three months from the date on which this order is furnished.
Petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE HJ/JS