Sri Samsthana Mahabaleshwar Devaru vs The State Of Karnataka By Its Secretary on 8 March, 2010

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Samsthana Mahabaleshwar Devaru vs The State Of Karnataka By Its Secretary on 8 March, 2010

Bench: Subhash B.Adi

   

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD  7 Vi'   '  '



 

DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF Iv1ARcI-:..;;_::2o_1B: '-   

BEFORE  A

THE HONBLE MR.JUsT1cE sLfB}iAS'B  'Am .

WRIT PETITION N0. 1?58_0/2006 v:Qiv11R*,iC)" 
BETWEEN:

1. SR1 SAMSTHANA MAHABAi;ES,HWAR..:'ID'EVARU
(A REGISTERED G"$1'RUS.T' UNDER. B.P.T.ACT)

No.50, cé)KARNA,. U'I'TARA..-KQANNADA,
REP BY 'I'1'S'----MAN.AG'ING' *1--"RL:s'_1"-EE_
SRI BHA,;,Ac;B_ANr)RAV vzGN_Es}§wARA DIXIT.

2. sR_I BHALAEHANDRA"v1c~.NEsHwARA DIXIT
s/0.. VIGNEs}1VwARA'E'DAMoDAR DIXIT
MAJOR" _ A    
R/0. GQKARNA

UTTARA KANNADJADITST.  PETITIONERS

" " {By sr{;sUBRA.MANYA"JDIs, sR.coUNsEL, FOR
SR1; ..\[G.,B'HAT,""A})V. )

AND. 

_.__.............-.

   THEFWATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY

 A REV " E DEPT,
 ,_1VIULTISTORIED BUILDINGS
 DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
 BANGALORE W» 01.



2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
KUMTA SUB DIVISION
KUMTA  
UTTARA KANNADA DIST.  RESRe.ND.ENﬁiS' 

(By SRI.B.V. ACHARYA, SR. COUNSEL}    »_ _
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDPZR vART'ICi1LES_ :2.-26'
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OR_II»IDIA';_PRAYING,__TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION LIT.' --.,17.l.l}2OOE§
ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPON-DENT;.\{IDE ANNExURE;A." "

THIS PETITION COMING ONFOR ORDiE'Rs,i'THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE;---}3'.OLLQWI--N_Cv:   

I7.II.é'QOe..' V

2. The Caisenlof_theA"petitiOners is, that they had made an

 befOre"th'e"'DiStriCt Judge, Canara, under Section

    Public Trust Act On 19.2.1957 to appoint 2""

petit;iOr1er_ asI_tI'i.1Stee Of the temple in exercise Of power under

".__SCCtlOI1'~  Of the Bombay Public Trust Act, (hereinafter referred

A ":_itO_als"~«_."the Trust Act"). The learned District Judge by Order

 dated 30.1.1960 appointed the 2nd petitiOrIer's father as

i Trustee of the temple. The father Of the 2nd petitioner died On

r""



DJ

3.].1.200~'i. Afiel' his demist? the 2" 1')Cl.i{i()I"1(.'I' has been

§Je1'{()1'r11ing the duties in the place' of his fz«1the1'. 1n--'"----£.»11€

1ne.anwhiEe. the d€:'.\»'O1GCS of the i5" }:>c'tiLi<)1'1e1' 211011;; \§{i'1..'41"3,VV€)1"h{?i'"-<
i'1*1.1£~:.£e.es. aC1i.ng UI'1Cif:'.I' the 'I'n.:st Act, filed writ j,)C'.EiIi'*5')_I"1S.i.1T1,:;\-"47
§\J0.33OI2/2003 to 33015/2003 (3ha11e;'1gAih'g«t:hc{_4 \*213,i_dity_ 10323653'

}iar1'1atak21 1~Ii1'1du Religious 111st,i1,u1fi{>11is-;._ 0' anti"  (3}12.i1'ii.¢1;b~iCbVV'

i311d()wrI1g»1'1{s Act. E997  I"A0'.V.I'L",~1_"1'fV"£€".IV V:  
'I5:11dO\x'1'I1€:I'}lS Act') .:111d 211s(),.f"g1' 21 tg I't'.S'1."(')i'£'-«..1;.}TIL:'§ temple
in E"z1vo1.:1' of the 13€{i1iO11€I:;§   that the
End()w111c:m',s Act V )._'~.fas_'    this court.
I--Iowe.ve1'._ the Pf  Ea'  21pp()'1nting the
2"" 1'<as}3()m}j1V'(-31211:  Offictel' of the E5' pei.i1i0n€:' W
temple. as §{11._L4é1ddi¢Ei'£)héh:' It". is this order 01" the 1*'

res]')()11dc;1n"  (tztllcird min" question.

03, . "'I7,h.i:.~; g.9(;»1.11'--*,'A.¥33_IV 0rd(~:1* d.211Led 12.12.2006 ciirct(;:E.ed the p£11'1,i(3S

I10 1i1;1i'I'11.g-1i.1'"':" 11s;"('i11() 2&3 on {.hz~1I. date zmd the Sélid im,eri1'1'1

order uféis (:<_€:1:1{.i.t'iu<:c§. H()W't'V€1'. the State G0\.»*e1'1'm1cr11. filed 21
"qNf<-:'1*n.<> ,0_1'1 19.8.2008. p1'ocEu(':i1'1g 21 I\E<J1'.ifi(:at.i01'1 clateci 16.8.2008
if :.(,r3i"V_a.Z'éc:A 's1La1.iah1.g the-1'£._ by Said 1h:m.iﬁ(tat'.i()1'1 the State Govt-:1_'11me111ﬂ

:1'1'z;1:'~;--=€v'ii411ci1*zi:xv1'1 1110 impL1.g11eci 110$ifi<':z11.i<'m c1z1t'eC% 17.l.1..2006



with eI'fee.t. from 14.8.2008. This; vourt aC(:ept,ing the
n01ifi<'?a11i01'1. by order dated 19.8.2008 CIiS1'1'1iSS~'3d the wrii.

petition as Elaving become i11fr1.1c11.1m1s.

4.

})CUti()1'1. petitioners herein. filed an appeal in 

£3ei11g_§ agg1'ie\'c:d by the order of disI1'1is.<3a1l (,)f'"'tE'},:(jff~._}5»'i;i{; 

O_09". ' 

The division bench after heari1'1g the 1)a1rties_, 21E'-}()"wed'A 1:<:_eg;;3V;;e';;.1_ A'

by obsserving as under:

"31. We are of the eiear 0pi1ii'e'.ui that in  present
case that has not he1f)p._e11ecih  ¢;Fjae VVvr'it. petiiioii was

1:.

got. dismissed in a hu1'rihe_ec:'l' rI':.ai*11j;e1* "fVh'e,1ner110 filed
by the learned .Gover1:me.n{=At§--v«U;:a'Le' the Court

and in the (?CiVLl4E7'S*_€§,.-Oi' 11"ea1'i11g ofihe*r:aee..=

32.  uis" a s:a.lVi.e1::1L;t.regh'E'1'r::'i1'1e1'11 of law that 21 proper
c);J;)():'1,1.1:ii1';z is   to the order side before
t..=;1.E«if;i:1r1';_g'z1_11_\/ aV'<':.'i'v-£;;>.1fse g1r.::ti(311. We no1.i(::e i.11ai. the St'211',e
 .¢t5ve15:£_§~;:§h:41s,2 by its (30I1C1L1(_?[ and by filing the
 the wrii peLi1.i0n filed by the
'--;:§:.vn_1()i-1e--;%';5-: VA.,*;"hS1'I1iSS€C¥ and 3.11211. 100 as having
be'('--r<.)Ie1';._é. '§i'1:'fFLI(If.1i(")L1S. The (.:0n£h,1(t'[. of the Static
 AG()Ve1'v%'}_ri1t?r1t is ¥'1C'.i'[h(?I' fail' 1101* proper. This is

VI'1(3'.[~. '€'.h€ c:(m.d1.:ci and method we expect from the



 

highest governance in the State and the Executive

organ of the State.

33. It is not necessary to go into the legality' 1- 
the merits of the orders though the__dle.ar'n:_ed
Additional Advocate General h.as"s*ought to. 
the same contending that theaction 
the orders passed by thee':3t_ate Gothternmeiit  

and proper.
34. We are of "view.'iith:ati"t-he,action taliein by
the State Governmenttiretiuiires scrutiny by
this Courtgairid it isiiialsoiiideisirahie I that the matter
is exaIni}_1edf5in. a.n'.ade{quatei. ;"n:iniaer and to the
satisfaction.» of i"'*the"'~ei:'pet'itioneivfs 'and also as to
W1'1et'her:"j;   W1fi't. pe'titi'on had become
infru<:tu0u's.'f- _s  C * C it
And directedthe Registry  under:
 direct"t~he______Registry to re-list the writ petition
A  C 'oeifore_t"t1e Single Bench of this Court."
~--.,Iti'isu.'i'n. pursuance of this order passed by the division
'V bench,' the inatter has been re--listed before this court.
 4_ Srii Subramanya Jois, learned Senior Counsel appearing

.  foriithe petitioners submitted that, when the Counsel for the

5



 

:6:

petitioner was not present, the 1'esponderit'wSt is §§1'{;'g';1l._:l"1"..'l'l'.j"._\:z'

has filed at t\/Eemo d3.ted 18.8.2008 and on 

writ petition dismissed. By notificationMgla.t.ed .l "7".'i' =l;2006,"tVl1e. 

Assistant Commissiotter was given', 21d'd£t.t011'a.l -.(:h.a1i'g:e~.. 

adn1ini.st1*ati0n of the temple a11(i.*t}.ij_s e0Li1't_ gt-:111't,edll'ifhe..siV:1tei"t1i'2
order of stzatius quo, by ViI'I1t.I€ of l.l1C:S«:E1i}'}E?VV. pet.i'1:iotte'1* eoﬁntmued
as trustee. The notifi<i:a1t'.i'oift"'dated  not only is for

withdrawing the notitieati01'1_<:1eited  it based on

' the issue Ol"c1HOlh£31" t'jp.tii'ic'cit.ioi€1 Li'ate'c'.l._l 2.8.2.006, and by which

the Goveitinlent E1<';jJl',~OI"lljf »Cl4el*e:tec;i"'t.the tehiple frorti the list of

notified temple_s,Al"0lbt1.t.v'*de'e.iAded tc) entrust the temple to
Rarnaehahdrétpttijl\/ltrtt. "4..'A}*'l1b_e3"---x_y'i'i'aj'le exercise 01" the government

was to det'ee1t the :m.ei~»nt1 cirdei' and to defeat the rights of the

'lpet:1ttiQi'tV'e'1':. la-'ie s"t.t.b&11'}it.t.eelmtl'1at.. the 110t,il'ieatimt €,l2tt.ed' 1.6.8.2006

has2._;1lt1__el'l'e't.:t"--t.;l."'cllei1Viétl of rights accrued to the petitioner. The

hill"-="St,21't'.e  order to over reach the i1'1te1*im order of
(:et1rt'."dsQt.ed 12.12.2006. had adopted at very tngeriietis
 issuirig 13()l.ill.(f23l.lO1I dated 1.2.8.2008 to delete the
  from the itetifiecl list. and hamcl over the sartie to the

ll'..R:;tlr121ehaI1cirapt:111 Mutt and t'he1'e211'te1'. by isst.1ingg the



n(>iifiCa.ti.01': d£-IEETC1 1.6.8.2008 has w1't'hdraw1'1 the impugned

notiiicettiora. with an iz1t'entio1'1 of diseoiitirluiztg 'Ehe i1I1}3L.ig;:ec§
nof;iii(?z1t.i011.

zt irtistee.

C1'r(rLi1'1'1stt'mces this writ. pei:it.i011 has notbectorne_'iI1f1;tL1'eft.:Otis. 

with an inteiitioii of dis(:0I1£i1'1t.1i11g the Q01i':i:0I30}".ti3'

fie i"t.n't.§1er st.sbmit:t'.ec§ that. in View C.'~_f':'-1.}1(f'.' 1 '

He st1'0ng1_V relied on the ()b:§ewz1t.ioI}s7,niaCi'e "fay-..__t'11i;é..'

Division Eiench of this ('.<)t11'i_.*i1i  
stibiiiitited that., the division bench  of its
order has observed. that ._   p1'c)V;Vie.1'VAVvsc1'L1i:iny
and has expressed that   matter is

examined in an é1ci'e'ci":«;;;.te that-1.219.:-" aitd to"th_¢,Isatisi'act,io.a1 of the

petii:i0:'1ers§ to _C,(AV)'I'1'Sf(11_C1"<ﬁts'._1.C__\VhCih(i1' the writ. petition has
bec(>11':e i11f1'ti.c:tt1Qt.1S of ;'i0i._  LéL1b111iE.i.eCl. that in View of the

013se1'V21t.itoi-is 111a(ie.,by't.he division bench. the 191'};-:1t'te.r required to

1'the'e()1'{S'idei=ed hr') the que.st.i011 as to whether it has b€C()1'I'1f3
i.1'1iI'L,1tY1.,'y1OUSJV"é1'£'TCi "iZtv1E.~'?O as to the effect of the wit',1'1dI"&.w211 of

V E1{)l",1'f1'(?AE'z.1'.i()I1 c§z1E'_t3j(:3  6. 8.2006.

 VIV"i'€;':..'I'L11'ih(",1' relied on two _}L.1(igmez1t.s of the apex c:0u:""{.

 ___'rep0i'f;.ed in (1998) 8 sec 388 in the matter of Paramjeet

"stx{gi1 Vs. State of U.P. 3; Others, and in (1998) 5 sec 639,



 

Government has withdrawn the impugned notiﬁcatio'n";.g In

View of the withdrawal of impugned notificati.0_n',»

 

survives for consideration. He further submitter}:  
petition does not survive withoutrthere.hei.i&ng;i<iany._caq§;eHof
action. I  it 1 ii 3
In so far as the merits~.oii"~~the Acaseiisi he
submitted that detaiied,tobjecti-on:"g'sta'ternentihasvineen ﬁled
denying the claim of the the learned
Senior Counsel also   need to go into
any other    writ petition itself
has  even in case of suit, if
the piaiivivt doesi'inQt,__:shoWT_ianycause of action, the plaint is
liabie to 'oe.__rejecteidiu.nd:er~..i§rder 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC. The
Division -Bench hashaskiiediiiithe court to again ﬁnd out as to
    has become infructuous or not, and

i:h1a'tis  matter is considered once again in detail.

r~'v

f.  To understand the rival contentions on the issue,
it  totswhetiher the writ petition has become infructuous or it

_ts_i;iIl. survives for consideration, I may required to notice the

-,i'oliowing: éitiév



 

:10:

The prayer in the writ petition reads as under:
"i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other  A'
order quashing the impugned notiﬁcationgdated__i'  _.__
17.11.2006 issued by the first respondent__i'n._"

No.Kan1.E. 103 Mu.Savi.2006, vide Annex1.11*--e.«A--._.:" 6 ii. grant such other and fuV:%tiie1%'mV1ief/s as: " _ A I--Ion'ble Court deems ﬁt "in ;'t'1*ie facts _ and A 1 circumstances of the case, including an yordyer as 1' to costs." < * » 1 Reading of the prayer maites' 'that:vthevvvpetitioners are aggrieved by the dated 17.11.2006 wherein the GAoVernme.n.t._ the Assistant Commissioner to take additional charge of the vciniii12.12.2006 has passed the folloivingd tinder:

"The further time to seek instructions. Post this matter on 18.12.2006. In the meanvvhiie; parties are directed to maintain .» 'status quo as today."

This -.inte.riI'ny order was continued further. the Government filed a Memo dated 1 . 18.8.i2'008--V:on'19.8.2008 before the Court. The memo reads as 1_inder__:

the above writ petition, the petitioner has 1 chaiienged the Notification No.Karn. E. 103 Mu Se ﬁdgéddﬁns rz,«!>ci*' .0 _ 0,, 0., Vi 2006 dated 17.1 1.2006. The said No1,1'f1'cai1'on has been wiE':hd1*awn by the 16.8.2008.

Notification de:-i;¢c£ Consequenil}-I, Lhe &1bOVt'?v'~,':W1"11~~. petition has been in1'1*u(:tu0L1s.

'1'here1'01"e, it is prayed that;"éjiavisii'1-i(5Ia'b*1;2 Court be pieased to di:vé'111is0S4' petitiorl as having b€CO1Tl.€«V1I1f}'1JC1L10L1'S,"

interest ofjustice ar1Vd'(:qu1't.y."'v- 0 0 Along with the abcxge n1€%1iG....':€'hi:.._ notiﬁfiéitiljn dated 16.8.2008 was produced, W"191i_C'1)'1i~sE'WhiCh reads as under:

" sﬁaédiﬁ -:j_44_€?é§?:'§' 55 .,;.§..;.;m4.». meg 9»0{5*2j¢os mg 5 53% gig? , ;...;a.1...:1. 6 <1? Fc'»5§h51+1*1~<gg01 .;

,5gT..J.6§§A .5363 o{;:u 1.305» 5«'§€-35-HAJC¥?'§,df§)e.§{) $0/gr'? e'EZ3§§a.2)ocﬁ a-§_.~;o' 5.5.15, éosﬁxéﬁd, « 0&09..:»c»<' .;.<p...%a".«a%;.; 6'55f2' 0 é';3c5c<:> c§€e,é ._ 1,?) gr} gag) (53.45/*i,5L; 3 V §"ap6.¢;geé 6§.n5;@:3c$ .§aa;o*a$ .. vgﬂg ci'§o.'U/2. €032. .103 rﬁJJ3G3Fe3- c-;~>.:s,oé I"'2~11~ .;2oc>é,:§g 035205' 0 .63,/mg .«§3ca.w:92 rz»:?m«5' wamﬁ 95¢-ﬁg c.",.':.c"«§<2.5'2,%€»J*>z'i.:3» '* W?-

igh 2ib'0.\_ré' , 'WT_1'i1 _ { A' fi--"1c%'--~_ 0' {-43 be qtiashed, By reading of the Memo dated 18.8.2008 as filed by the Government, in categorical terms it is stated that'»t. t.he notification dated 17.11.2006 has been for a moment, that the State has filed the _y producing the notification dated l6.8;2t)O8«a1l--cl notification has been m'thdrawn, .8 whether, even after the l8t.ate Government withdrawing notrii'i'-:tiatiol1l1';'a.still th'e"c'ourt could go into the question of notification. The only prayer _the quashing the impugned noti:fiea.ri_on_f;a;t1d l(}ovemn1ent is that it is withdrawn. ____ notification. the writ petition xvill Cause, and no writ. could be issued. mL1ch».less. the 'vai'1t Vof-certiorari. as there is nothing t.o the Government has withdrawn the vnot.ifi'c.at'iVori «impugned in the writ petition with effect from However. no cause survived. particularly

--..yli"or"..quas.hing. Writ of Certiorari cannot be issued against r:o.n~exjsting order or notification. If there are any other ?>\%/*'v 4, ' consideration in this Writ Petition.

notifications issued and if they affect the rights of the petitioner, petit.ioner has right to question them. but no writ of certiora1'i could be issued against the non est order. Now. it is._1)4'ro.'ug."tjitVVto my notice that vide notification dated 12.8.2008 p:e't..itionle'1=l-_ 0 temple. which was notified in the listv-'o"f'r':cti&t'i'eci te1.n'p1.esVVundei«' the Endowments Act has been deleteda'an0c._it is also 'sta'~teci=.pt'ha't'-..

the administration of the the Ramachandrapura Mut.t and theVAs-aid"l'nolt~il1cation"is ehalleriged by the petitioners in a:nd.Vtwo other writ petitions. W2. w.P.31.o26/zoos From this it is clear that to challenge the said notiiicat'Vion..l;"_

9. 17111" the.not'ifiVcat_j_or1.:dated 16.8.2008 there is a reference to tlie'-..i"01ot.ifViczV1tiAo-.r_10 dated 12.8.2008. Admittedly. the 0' Assuming that the issue of notification of notification dated 12.8.2008 the interests of the petitioner, however the e1dVi'h.itt.edly has filed a separate writ. petition. in V1€W of_th'e"same. even the said aspect also does not arise for

10. The Governmeiii not only in the memo but zﬂso in the notifictaiion. has categoriealiy stated that i.}1e_Hi_I"npi1 é4§1'f~*¢3 V:

notification dated 17.11.2006 has been xxri1'l1d1'aw"e.,_"

consequence of the said 11oiifica1.ioi1""'is'«that. _.i'hde'r'e Vis'~7no"1 im L1 rned order and there is nothin iioudeE7ern1ine." ., * 13 s _ _ _ Ii. Two decisions cited ieparneci. '§u§enioi;d}Cq)-,;nseI for the petitioner, one re1aI.es..,.to .;)xif'~.i.,;--;-th. the said decision the appellant had aged.oAfT:V;vef;iremer1t on the basis of the date {sf seidrice record and if the date of Vu'p§e'iiiior1er was upheid, dismissal of become iI1f1'uet':uous would as such. it is held as not become ii'nﬁ'L1r:1u'oL1s.V. ",E--ienee. the said decision is of no hiilp to ﬁne petii'ivoneru.* .....

-the opinion expressed by the division bench its jixdgmeiﬁ_iai'ipa1*as 32 to 34 supra. wherein it has been ~ «tjohsewed iliaﬁthe disrnissai of the writ petition having become W,iinﬁ;tiCi:ub()tiAs was passed, when the pef:i1..ioner's Counsel was not :15: present and the Division Bench felt that there was no..._great hurry to dispose of the writ petition. In this-'jicofitext, observations are made that, a proper scrutiny is'"desirav5'le ' examine the matter In an adequate manner to 'itl'1'e~:g'_;;'ti'sfa'ctioln ii' of the petitioners and also to know '~whe'tic1eir the has become infructuous.

it is in the light ofppthe 'a'boiiie'ioidbservation'; may be mentioned that, on the function under Articles 226 and W227' ._of of whether it is Single Judge of section 4 of the KarnatalcaiiAiifl§vig;h;'€,§our'titfict,laproiiision is made for intra~ court appeal Judge to the Division Bench. This cannotuibe litreatediias inter--court appeal. The orders _.. Vpassed3gvhe'ther th_eV___Single Judge or the Division Bench they 'Ware all order passed by the High Court. Learned ?

Single.._,judVge_~~'.,,i0es'snot function as subordinate court to the Division Bench It .p:1~ii"ppellate court has power to remand the matter to the ._._i'courjt which has passed the decree in appeal. Appellate Court %9*' K7'

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court