Karnataka High Court
Sri Prasanna Veeranjaneya Swamy Temple vs Government Of Karnataka on 14 March, 2018
Author: Vineet Kothari
Bench: Vineet Kothari
1/10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF MARCH 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
WRIT PETITION No.840/2014 (GM-R/C)
BETWEEN:
SRI. PRASANNA VEERANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE
A UNIT OF SRI. PRASANNA VEERANJANEYA
SWAMY TRUST, DULY CONSTITUTED UNDER
THE INDIAN TRUSTS ACT HAVING ITS
OFFICE AT 4TH MAIN ROAD
MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT
BANGALORE-560086
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
SRI. S. V. KRISHNA MURTHY RAO
S/O LATE S. VENKATA RAO
AGED 75 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.55, III CROSS
II STAGE, GRUHALAKSHMI LAYOUT
KAMALANAGAR, BANGALORE-560079.
... PETITIONER
(By Mr. N. RAVINDRANATH KAMATH, ADV.,)
AND:
1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
BY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, (MUJARAI)
M.S.BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560001.
BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY.
2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR
HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE
ENDOWMENTS, IN KARNATAKA
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
MAHADESHWAR BHAVAN
Date of Order 14-03-2018 W.P.No.840/2014
Sri. Prasanna Veeranjaneya Swamy Temple
Vs. Government of Karnataka & Ors.
2/10
CHAMARAJPET
BANGALORE-560018.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560009.
4. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
& ADMINISTRATOR OF
SRI PRASANNA VEERANJANEYA TEMPLE
BANGALORE HAVING ITS OFFICE,
AT K.G.ROAD, BANAGALORE-560009.
5. SRI. H.S. PUTTAKEMPANNA
S/O LATE K.H. SHAMEGOWDA
AGED 75 YEARS
R/A NO.28/15, V MAIN
MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT
BANGALORE-560086.
6. SRI. V. GANGADHARA RAO
S/O V. NARAYAN
AGED 58 YEARS
R/A NO.830/95, 13TH CROSS
MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT
BANGALORE-560086.
7. SRI. H.M. MALLIKARJUNA SWAMY
S/O LATE H.P. MALLANNA
AGED 63 YEARS
R/A NO.255, III MAIN ROAD
MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT
BANGALORE-560086.
8. SRI. A. BYLAPPA
S/O LATE ANJANAPPA K.
AGED 69 YEARS
R/A NO.575, 3RD CROSS
MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT
BANGALORE-560086.
Date of Order 14-03-2018 W.P.No.840/2014
Sri. Prasanna Veeranjaneya Swamy Temple
Vs. Government of Karnataka & Ors.
3/10
9. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
VEERANJANEYA TEMPLE
BANGALORE.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Mr. D.R. ANANDEESWARA, HCGP FOR R1-R3
Ms. NAMRATA KULKARNI, ADV., FOR
Mr. HARANAHALLI & Mr. PATIL,
Mr. ABHIJIT HARANAHALLI, ADV., FOR R4 & R9
Mr. MANJUNATH HEGDE, ADV., FOR
Mr. T. SHESHAGIRI RAO, ADV., FOR R5 TO R8)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE G.O ISSUED
BY THE R1, DT.22.11.13, PRODUCED AT ANN-V,
CONSEQUENTLY THE R1 & R2 MAY BE DIRECTED TO
HANDOVER THE ADMINISTRATION & MANAGEMENT OF
SRI.PRASANNA VEERANJENYA SWAMY TEMPLE, AT
MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT TO THE PETITIONER & ETC.
THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Mr. N. Ravindranath Kamath, Adv. for Petitioner Mr. D.R. Anandeeswara, HCGP for R1 to R3 Ms. Namrata Kulkarni, Adv. for R4 & R9 Mr. Manjunath Hegde, Adv. for Mr. T. Sheshagiri Rao, Adv. for R5 to R8
1. The petitioner-Sri.Prasanna Veeranjaneya Swamy Temple has filed this writ petition in this Court on 06.01.2014 with a prayer to quash the impugned order Annexure-R dated 11.09.2013 passed by the Respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Date of Order 14-03-2018 W.P.No.840/2014 Sri. Prasanna Veeranjaneya Swamy Temple Vs. Government of Karnataka & Ors.
4/10 declaring and notifying the petitioner-Temple as a "Muzarai Institution" u/S.42 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997.
2. The operative portion of the said impugned order is quoted below for ready reference:-
"OPINION In view of the above facts and circumstances of the matter, it is opined that the management of 'Sri Prasanna Veeranjaneya Swamy Temple' situated at Mahalakshmi Layout, Bangalore is liable to be taken over by Government from the control and clutches of the Trust and may be notified and declared as Muzrai Institution under Section 42 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997.
And atleast the remaining area of 'Park' shall be utilized for the very purpose for which it is reserved and maintained by the Local Authority i.e., the BBMP or BDA as the case may be.
Accordingly, with the above facts and circumstances of the case along with the above Date of Order 14-03-2018 W.P.No.840/2014 Sri. Prasanna Veeranjaneya Swamy Temple Vs. Government of Karnataka & Ors.5/10
opinion, the Inquiry Report is furnished to the Commissioner for Religious and Charitable Endowments for further necessary course of action.
Sd/-
(Dr. G.C. Prakash) Deputy Commissioner Bangalore District.
3. The said Temple was initially notified u/S.42 or 43 of the Act vide Annexure-A order dated 11.04.2012, which came to be challenged by the petitioner-Temple before this Court by way of W.P.Nos.14251-253/2012 (Sri.Prasanna Veeranjaneya Swamy Trust vs. The Secretary to Government), which order was quashed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, as the mandatory procedure u/S.43(8) of the Act was not followed and the matter was remanded back to the State Government to decide the matter again before 31.08.2013 and till then, the Administrator was allowed to continue to manage the affairs of the said Temple.
Date of Order 14-03-2018 W.P.No.840/2014 Sri. Prasanna Veeranjaneya Swamy Temple Vs. Government of Karnataka & Ors.
6/10
4. It is after the said remand by this Court in the order dated 28.03.2013 that the Deputy Commissioner again decided the aforesaid issue and passed the impugned order vide Annexure-R dated 11.09.2013 quoted above. The said order has been now challenged before this Court.
5. The bone of contention between the parties is that the maximum period of 5 years for which the Notification u/S.43(3) of the Act notifying it to be declared as 'Institution' to be managed by the State Government is 5 years and whether such period of 5 years should be computed in the present case from the initial date of order vide Annexure-A dated 11.04.2012 or from the subsequent order passed upon remand on 11.09.2013.
6. It would be relevant to quote Section 43(8) of the Act, 1997 below:-
Date of Order 14-03-2018 W.P.No.840/2014 Sri. Prasanna Veeranjaneya Swamy Temple Vs. Government of Karnataka & Ors.7/10
"43. Notice to show cause. - (1) Where the Commissioner has reasons to believe that a Hindu Religious Institution whether or not governed by a settled scheme is being mismanaged and he is satisfied that in the interest of its administration, it is necessary to take proceedings under this chapter, he may, by notice published in the prescribed manner, call upon the Manager and all other persons having interest, to show cause why such institution should not be declared to be subject to the provisions of this Chapter.
(2) Such notice shall state the reasons for the action proposed and specify a reasonable time, not being less than one month from the date of issue of the notice, for showing such cause.
(3) The manager or any person having interest may thereupon prefer his objections, if any, to the issue of a declaration under this chapter.
(4) Such objections shall be in writing and shall reach the Commissioner before the expiry of the time specified in the notice aforesaid or within such further time not exceeding forty-
five days on the whole as may be extended by the Commissioner.
Date of Order 14-03-2018 W.P.No.840/2014 Sri. Prasanna Veeranjaneya Swamy Temple Vs. Government of Karnataka & Ors.
8/10 (5) Where no objections are received within the time so specified or extended, the State Government may, on receipt of a report from the Commissioner to that effect, by a notification published in the official Gazette declare such Hindu Religious Institution to be subject to the provisions of this Chapter.
(6) Where objections are received within the time so specified or extended, the Commissioner may authorize any officer subordinate to him to hold an enquiry into the objections in the manner prescribed who shall after giving the Manager or any person having interest an opportunity of being heard submit his enquiry report to the Commissioner as to whether or not the Institution should be declared to be subject to the provisions of this Chapter.
(7) After considering the enquiry report referred to in sub-section (6), if the Commissioner decides that the Institution should be declared as aforesaid, he shall make a report to that effect to the State Government, which may, by notification declare such Hindu Religious Institution to be subject to the provisions of this Chapter.
(8) Every Notification issued under sub-section (5) or (7) shall remain in force for such period as may be specified therein and Date of Order 14-03-2018 W.P.No.840/2014 Sri. Prasanna Veeranjaneya Swamy Temple Vs. Government of Karnataka & Ors.
9/10 which may be extended further, so however that the total period shall not exceed five years from the date of the first notification, or till a new Committee of Management is formed to the satisfaction of the State Government whichever is earlier.
(9) Where a new Committee is formed to the satisfaction of the State Government, the State Government may on its own or on the report of the Commissioner direct the Executive Officer appointed for the institution to handover the management of the Institution to the new Committee of Management.
7. Since the period of 5 years, in any case, even if computed from 11.09.2013 is going to expire in near future in the month of September, 2018, this Court does not consider it necessary to decide the said question in the present case. The afore-quoted Section 43(8) of the Act also stipulates, interalia, that even before 5 years, the management of the Temple can be handed over to the New Committee of Management Date of Order 14-03-2018 W.P.No.840/2014 Sri. Prasanna Veeranjaneya Swamy Temple Vs. Government of Karnataka & Ors.
10/10 formed to the satisfaction of the State Government, whichever is earlier.
8. Therefore, in any case, the petitioner-Temple has to form a New Committee and approach the State Government to record its satisfaction, as to whether the New Committee can be handed over the management and affairs of the said Temple or not.
9. In view of the aforesaid, as agreed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Govt.Advocate, the writ petition is disposed of with a liberty and direction to the petitioner to form its New Committee and approach the 1st Respondent-State Government and the State Government shall act in accordance with the provisions of Section 43(8) of the Act and pass appropriate orders in the matter, as expeditiously as possible .
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Srl.