Karnataka High Court
Aravinda Kamath P vs Union Of India on 4 March, 2022
Bench: Chief Justice, S R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 3647 OF 2022 (KLR-RES-PIL)
BETWEEN:
ARAVINDA KAMATH P
S/O P.N. ANANTHA KAMATH
ADVOCATE, AGED 47 YEARS
NO.53/18, 2ND MAIN, 2ND CROSS
LALJINAGAR, LAKKASANDRA
BENGALURU - 560 030
PAN ACRPK3347D
AADHAR NO.300786000847
MOBILE NO.9448063197
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI S.P. SHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI YOGESH K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA
REPRESNTED BY
SECRETARY OF MINISTRY OF
LAW AND JUSTICE
SHASTRI BHAWAN, A WING
DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD
NEW DELHI
DELHI (NCT) - 110 001.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO THE GOVERNMENT
REVENUE DEPARTMENT (MUZRAI)
6TH FLOOR, 1ST GATE
M.S. BUILDING
-2-
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001
3. COMMISSIONER FOR HINDU
RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS
AND CHARITABLE
ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT
3RD FLOOR, MALAI MAHADESHWAR BUILDING
A.V. ROAD, CHAMARAJPET
BENGALURU - 560 018.
4. UNDER SECRETARY TO
THE GOVERNMENT
REVENUE DEPARTMENT (MUZRAI)
5TH FLOOR, 2ND GATE
M.S. BUILDING
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
5. COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BANGALORE
MAHANAGAR PALIKE
N.R. SQUARE
BENGALURU - 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(SRI M.N. KUMAR, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL
FOR RESPONDENT NO.1
SRI H.R. SHOWRI, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT NOS.2, 3 AND 4)
---
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE GO BEARING NO KUME 98
MUAABI 2021: BANGALORE DATED 28/09/2021 ISSUED BY
ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, LAND UPOR
AND MUZARAI, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE, VIDE
ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
ORDER
Heard. Mr.M.N.Kumar, learned Central Government Counsel has put in appearance for respondent No.1, whereas, learned Additional Government Advocate appears for respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4. For the orders proposed, no need to issue notice to respondent No.5.
2. This Public Interest Litigation has been filed seeking for the following reliefs:
"1) Issue a writ of Certiorari quashing the GO bearing No.KUME 98 MUAABI 2021:
Bangalore dated 28-09-2021 issued by Addl Secretary, Revenue Department, land UPOR and Muzarai, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore, vide Annexure A.
2) Issue further appropriate writ to Union of India and State of Karnataka to forth with forebear from promoting any religion or pick Hindu religious temples only for being administrated or managing the properties, the income generated by the temple, collection of hundis and cash box and diverting the same for any governmental purposes and or for the welfare of non-hindu institutions, persons and entities.
3) To hold the purported act of union of India and State Karnataka of leaving non Hindu institution to be managed by themselves and to take prejudicial steps against Hindu temple, administration of Hindu temples and meddling with ownership of land, properties, bank accounts, cash in hundis belonging to Hindu temple as opposed to -4- constitutional scheme and basic structure of the constitution in particular Articles 14, 25 to 28, 162, 288, 298, 299 and 300 A of the Constitution of India and to grant such other relief in the interest of justice."
3. Mr.S.P.Shankar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the Government being secular in terms of the Constitution of India cannot regulate by way of the impugned Government Order, in particular, the religion or the temples managed by that particular religion by issuing the Government Order. It is also submitted that the State Government cannot promote any religion or pick Hindu religious temples only for being administered or managing the properties, the income generated by the temple, collection of hundis and cash box and diverting the same for any governmental purposes and/or for the welfare of non-Hindu institutions, persons and entities. It is submitted that the purported act of the Government leaving non-Hindu institutions to be managed by themselves and to take prejudicial steps against Hindu temples, administration to Hindu temples and meddling with ownership of land, properties, bank accounts, cash in hundis belong to only Hindu temple is opposed to constitutional scheme and basic structure of the -5- Constitution, in particular, Articles 4, 21 to 28, 162, 288, 298, 299 and 300A of the Constitution of India.
4. We have considered the submissions made by learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and perused the record.
5. As per the brief case given in the writ petition, the property in question was gifted by an individual Smt. Dwarakabai Vedantham. The gift deed as well as the terms of the gift are not on record. The impugned Government Order appears to have been issued for better management and welfare of certain beneficiaries. 1/3rd share of the income derived out of the said property is required to be used for anna santarpana to the devotees at the time of Tulamasa conducted by Sri Ranganatha Swamy Temple situated at Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District. The remaining amount is required to be used for giving medical services to the female students who are availing medical education and to create the habit of maintaining cleanliness and to pay scholarship to such students. It is also for the purpose of protecting the property from illegal encroachment/alienation and land allotment by unauthorised persons, that a decision has been taken to take all the lands to the custody of the Department. The -6- Government Order under challenge clearly indicates that a Committee for protection of the said land has been constituted consisting of the Commissioner, Endowment and Charitable Department, Additional Deputy Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner under Endowment and Charitable Department, Central Position Assistant 2, Zonal Joint Director of Land Records, Assistant Commissioner, District Registrar, Bengaluru Urban District, Executive Officer of Taluk Panchayath and etc.
6. A perusal of the impugned Government Order clearly indicates that it has been done with the purpose of better management of the properties in question. It is to be noted that the petitioner being totally an outsider to the said property cannot claim any right or title over the property in question and by way of the instant Public Interest Litigation cannot have any locus to challenge the impugned Government Order.
7. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to grant indulgence in the instant writ petition. The consequential reliefs to the main relief can be considered in some other appropriate case. However, for that purpose, the writ petition itself would not be maintainable in view of -7- the fact that we have come to the conclusion that the petitioner does not have any locus to challenge the impugned Government Order.
8. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE AHB