Sri Kudli Arya Akshobhya vs State Of Karnataka on 16 August, 2017

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Kudli Arya Akshobhya vs State Of Karnataka on 16 August, 2017

Bench: A S Bopanna

                             1


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017

                         BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA

         WRIT PETITION No.29417/2017 (GM-R/C)

BETWEEN:

SRI KUDLI ARYA AKSHOBHYA
THEERTHA SAMSTHANAM
LAKSHMINARAYANA TEMPLE STREET
SHIVAMOGGA 577202
REP. BY ITS DIWAN & GPA HOLDER
N S SREEDHARARAO
S/O SREENIVASARAO
                                            ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. VISHWANATH R HEGDE, ADV.)


AND:

1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA
       DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
       M S BUILDING,
       DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
       BANGALORE 560001
       REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

2.     COMMISSIONER FOR RELEGIOUS &
       CHARITABEL ENDOWMENTS
       CHARMARAJPET
       BANGALORE 560018

3.     REGIONAL COMMISSIONER
       BANGALORE DIVISION,
       BMTC COMPLEX
       SHANTHINAGAR
       BANGALORE 560027
                                         ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI LAKSHMINARAYANA, AGA. FOR R1 TO 3)
                            2




      THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO DIRECT R-3
TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION / APPEAL FILED BY THE
PETITIONER ON 9.11.2016 AT ANNEX-C.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                       ORDER

Learned Government Advocate to accept notice for respondents No.1 to 3 and file memo of appearance in four weeks.

2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking issue of mandamus to direct respondent No.3 to consider the representation dated 09.11.2016 and pass orders in accordance with law.

3. The petitioner claims to be one of the mutts established by Sri Madhavacharya. In that regard, the petitioner claims that the Tasdik allowance which had been fixed through the notification dated 23.01.1964 has not been revised and as such the petitioner has made the 3 representation seeking such fixation of the Tasdik allowance. Since the representation/application as made on 09.11.2016 has not received consideration from respondent No.3, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. This Court at this juncture need not arrive at a conclusion with regard to the right of the petitioner. In that regard all that is necessary to be noticed is that the petitioner invoking the provision as contained in the Act has filed the application.

5. If that be the position, respondent No.3 is required to take note of the representation, consider the same in accordance with law, take a decision and convey the same to the petitioner. If any additional documents are required by respondent No.3, the same shall also be secured from the petitioner.

6. To enable such consideration, the petitioner shall file one more copy of the representation along with all 4 supporting documents with respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 shall collate all materials, take a decision and convey the same to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, but not later than two months from the date on which a copy of the representation is filed with respondent No.3.

The petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE akc/bms

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court