Karnataka High Court
Satyanarayan Shastri vs State Of Karnataka on 6 December, 2013
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S.Bopanna
1 WP 17443-17450/2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE A.S.BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION Nos. 17443-17450 OF 2013 (GM-R/C)
BETWEEN:
1. SATYANARAYANA SHASTRI
HEAD PONTIFF (PRADHANA ARCHAKA)
S/O S.RAMACHANDRA SHASTRI
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
2. SRI A CHANDRAMOHAN
ASST. PONTIFF
S/O S.ANANTHA PADMANABHA SHASTRI
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
3. SRI D NAGARAJA RAO
ASST. PONTIFF
S/O D.GOVINDA RAO
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
4. SRI R SURYAPRAKASH
ASST. PONTIFF
S/O S.RAMACHANDRA SHASTRI
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
5. SIR R RAJU
ASST. PONTIFF
S/O S.RAMACHANDRA SHASTRI
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.
2 WP 17443-17450/2013
6. SRI SOMASHEKAR SHARMA
ASST. PONTIFF
S/O S.SHIVA SHANKARA SHASTRI
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.
7. VENKATESHA KUMAR SHARMA
ASST. PONTIFF
S/O B.K.SRINIVASA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
8. SRI PURUSHOTHAM
ASST. PONTIFF
S/O RAMACHANDRA SHASTRI,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
ALL THE ABOVE MENTIONED
PETITIONERS: ARE CARE OF
BANASHANKARI TEMPLE,
BANGALORE - 560 070.
... PETITIONERS
(By Sri.K.SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, Adv.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THOUGH CHIEF SECRERTARY
MUZRAI DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. COMMISSIONER
HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE
ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANALORE URBAN DISTRICT
BANALORE - 560 009.
3 WP 17443-17450/2013
4. EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Sri BANASHANKARI TEMPLE
S.KARIAPPA ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 070.
5. Sri.H.M.ANAND KUMAR, MAJOR,
ASST. PONTIFF
S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS
AGED ABOUT NOT KNOWN TO
PETITIONERS,
C/O BANASHANKARI TEMPLE,
BANGALORE - 560 070.
6. Sri R.N.SATISH KUMAR, MAJOR,
ASST. PONTIFF
S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS
AGED ABOUT NOT KNOWN TO
PETITIONERS,
C/O BANASHANKARI TEMPLE
BANGALORE - 560 070.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.VIJAYAKUMAR.A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3;
Sri.K.HARIPRASAD, Adv. FOR Sri.A.GOPALAIAH &
ASSOCIATES FOR R4; R5- SERVED;
Sri.M.S.RAJENDRA PRASAD, Sr.COUNSEL FOR
M.S.RAJENDRA PRASAD ASSOCIATES FOR R6)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING QUASH THE ORDER DATED 02.03.2013
PASSED BY R-2 HEREIN (ANNEXURE-A).
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
4 WP 17443-17450/2013
ORDER
Though the petitions are listed for consideration of the application for vacating stay, considering that the petition lies in a narrow compass, the petitions are taken up for consideration with the consent of the learned counsel and disposed of by this order.
2. The petitioners are before this Court assailing the order dated 02.03.2013 impugned at Annexure - 'A'. Further, a direction has also been sought that the said order is arbitrary and illegal.
3. The fact that the petitioners and the Respondents No.5 & 6 are working as Archakas in the 4th Respondent Temple is not in dispute. The question for consideration is only with regard to the manner in which they are required to discharge their function as Archakas in the said Temple. The grievance put forth by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners is 5 WP 17443-17450/2013 that at an earlier instance, when the first petitioner was before this Court in W.P.No.26024/2003 disposed of on 13.08.2003, this Court had noticed that the first petitioner herein was working as Pradhana Archaka and the manner of rotation to be made as provided under Section 9(2) of the Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 ('Act' for short) was taken into consideration and appropriate order had been made. In that view, the Special Deputy Commissioner by the order dated 01.12.2004 had also appointed the first petitioner as the Pradhana Archaka of the 4th Respondent Temple. In that view, it is contended that first and foremost the order dated 02.03.2013 made at Annexure - 'A' is without jurisdiction in as much as the petitioners had not filed such appeal. It is his further contention that even otherwise, the manner in which the order had been passed providing for rotation of the Archakas would be contrary to the earlier position as ordered by this Court 6 WP 17443-17450/2013 in as much as the first petitioner is recognized as the Pradhana Archaka. Even the manner of rotation as provided is not justified since the seniority has been ignored. Hence, it is contended that the order is liable to be set aside.
4. The learned Senior Counsel as also the other learned counsel including the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would however seek to justify the order impugned herein by contending that in any event, the provision under Section 9(2) of the Act has granted the discretion to the Management of the Temple to rotate the Archakas and in view of the order made by the Authority, the appropriate assignment of work is to be given by the Management and in such circumstance, the petitioners cannot have any grievance. It is also their case that the order at Annexure - 'A' is in consonance with the written submission that had been made by the 7 WP 17443-17450/2013 petitioners themselves on 07.07.2012 before the Appellate Authority and as such, the order does not call for interference.
5. In the light of the above, the only question to be considered is as to whether the rotation as provided is justified and whether the scope of the order passed at Annexure - 'A' should be construed to include even the first petitioner for the purpose of rotation and as to whether he should be considered as the Pradhana Archaka, not being similar to the other Archakas?
6. In this regard, the earlier order passed in W.P.No.26024/2013 dated 13.08.2003 needs to be referred. This Court after making detail reference to Section 9(2) of the Act, and on taking note of the provision contained therein for appointing the Pradhana Archaka and also the rotation of the duties by the Committee of Management was of the view that the petitioner therein, i.e., the first petitioner in these 8 WP 17443-17450/2013 petitions should continue as the Pradhana Archaka till fresh order is made by the Special Deputy Commissioner. Pursuant to the said order, the Special Deputy Commissioner in proceedings before him had passed the order dated 01.12.2004 wherein the first petitioner herein is appointed as the Pradhana Archaka in the 4th Respondent Temple with immediate effect. The said order has been in force from the year 2004. If this is kept in perspective and the order at Annexure - 'A' is taken into consideration, though there is some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that such appeal suomotu could not have been registered, the same need not be adverted to in detail in as much as the issue therein and the order passed is in consequence with the written submission that has been made by the petitioners on 07.07.2012 (Annexure -G).
9 WP 17443-17450/2013
7. Hence, to the extent of Appellate Authority holding that there shall be rotation of the work of the Archakas, I see no reason to interfere. However, considering the fact that when the first petitioner herein was before this Court on the earlier occasion and in obedience of the said order of remand, the Special Deputy Commissioner by the order dated 01.12.2004 had appointed the first petitioner as the Pradhana Archaka, the first petitioner herein shall be continued to be considered as the Pradhana Archaka as there is no other indication in the appellate order with regard to appointing any other person as the Pradhana Archaka. Therefore, the first petitioner shall be treated as Pradhana Archaka without subjecting him to the order of rotation. However, in so far as the other Archakas are concerned, certainly, the Management would rotate their services as contemplated in law.
10 WP 17443-17450/2013
In terms of the above observation and
clarification, the petitions stand disposed of. The
application is also accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE dh*