Karnataka High Court
Shree Shivamuneeshwara Shantadurga ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 June, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8681
WP No. 64473 of 2009
C/W WP No. 66630 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 64473 OF 2009 (GM-R/C)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 66630 OF 2010
IN WP.NO.64473 OF 2009
BETWEEN:
1. SHREE SHIVAMUNEESHWARA SHANTADURGA
DEV TRUST,
KAIKINI, BHATKAL TALUK,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT,
BY ITS TRUSTEES PETITIONERS NO.2 TO 6.
2. SHRI. SURESH BHAVANISHANKAR KAIKINI,
AGE: 72 YEARS, R/O 15, UDAYA SOCIETY,
OPP. AMBABAI TEMPLE, AAREY ROAD,
GOREGAUN WEST, MUMBAI-400 062.
3. SHRI. RAMDAS RAGHAVENDRA KAIKINI ,
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR AGE: 78 YEARS, R/O AT POST: KAIKINI,
BHATKAL TALUK, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD
BENCH 4. SHRI GOURISH MATUTI KAIKINI,
AGE: 42 YEARS, R/O. FLAT NO.13,
PARESH APARTMENTS NO.93,
4TH MAIN, MALLESHWARAM,
BANGALORE-560 003.
5. SHRI. CHAITANYA RAMDAS KAIKINI,
AGE: 46 YEARS, R/O. DOOR NO.1060/1,
BEHIND SIDDAGANGA STORE,
RAVINDRA NAGAR, HASAN,
KARNATAKA STATE-573201.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8681
WP No. 64473 of 2009
C/W WP No. 66630 of 2010
6. SHRI RAVINDRA RAMDAS KAIKINI
AGE: 42 YEARS, R/O. KAIKINI,
TALUK: BHATKAL, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BHATKAL, DIST: UTTARAKANNAD.
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
UTTARA KANNADA, DIST: KARWAR.
3. COMMISSIONER FOR RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE
ENDOWMENTS, MALE MAHADESHWARA
BHAVAN, CHAMRAJ PETE, BANGALORE.
4. DEPUTY TAHASILDAR,
MAVALLI, BHATKAL TALUK,
DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.
5. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS SECRETARY ,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND RELIGIOUS
ENDOWMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE.
6. NAGESH S. TURME,
AGE: 60 YEARS,
R/O. MANGESHKRUPA COMPOUND,
BASTIPETH, KUMTA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1-R5;
SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADV. FOR R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE
ORDER NO.DVS/CR/50/2005-06, DATED 24/7/09 PASSED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT-ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, THE COPY OF WHICH
HAS BEEN PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A
AND THE ALSO ORDER NO.DVS:CR-1/09-10, DATED 2-7-2009,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8681
WP No. 64473 of 2009
C/W WP No. 66630 of 2010
DATED 2/7/2009, PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT-DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER, THE COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-B AND ALSO THE ORDER NO. EKAROOPA
SASANA/CR/55/08-09, PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT-
COMMISSIONER FOR RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS,
THE COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C.
IN WP NO.66630 OF 2010 (GM-R/C)
BETWEEN:
1. SHREE SHIVAMUNEESHWARA SHANTADURGA
DEV TRUST,
KAIKINI, BHATKAL TALUK,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT,
BY ITS TRUSTEES PETITIONERS NO.2 TO 6.
2. SHRI. SURESH BHAVANISHANKAR KAIKINI,
AGE: 72 YEARS, R/O 15, UDAYA SOCIETY,
OPP. AMBABAI TEMPLE, AAREY ROAD,
GOREGAUN WEST, MUMBAI-400 062.
3. SHRI. RAMDAS RAGHAVENDRA KAIKINI ,
AGE: 78 YEARS, R/O AT POST: KAIKINI,
BHATKAL TALUK, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.
4. SHRI GOURISH MATUTI KAIKINI,
AGE: 42 YEARS, R/O. FLAT NO.13,
PARESH APARTMENTS NO.93,
4TH MAIN, MALLESHWARAM,
BANGALORE-560 003.
5. SHRI. CHAITANYA RAMDAS KAIKINI,
AGE: 46 YEARS, R/O. DOOR NO.1060/1,
BEHIND SIDDAGANGA STORE,
RAVINDRA NAGAR, HASAN,
KARNATAKA STATE-573201.
6. SHRI RAVINDRA RAMDAS KAIKINI
AGE: 42 YEARS, R/O. KAIKINI,
TALUK: BHATKAL, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8681
WP No. 64473 of 2009
C/W WP No. 66630 of 2010
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS SECRETARY ,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND RELIGIOUS
ENDOWMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE.
2. COMMISSIONER FOR RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE
ENDOWMENTS,
MALE MAHADESHWARA BHAVAN,
CHAMRAJ PETE, BANGALORE.
3. L.S. SHRIKANTA BABU,
DESK OFFICER,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT (MUZRAI),
MALE MAHADESHWARA BHAVAN,
CHAMARAJ PETE, BANGALORE.
4. NAGESH S. TURME,
AGE: 61 YEARS, R/O. YASHASVINI,
SRI. MANGESH KRUPA COMPOUND,
BASTI PETH, KUMAT,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.S KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADV. FOR R4;
R3-SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE
CORRIGENDUM NO.RD 70 MLD 2009, BANGALORE DATED
30/11/2009 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT, THE COPY OF WHICH
HAS BEEN PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8681
WP No. 64473 of 2009
C/W WP No. 66630 of 2010
ORDER
These two petitions are filed by Shree Shivamuneeshwara Shantadurga Dev Trust. W.P.No.64473/2009 is filed assailing the impugned order dated 24.07.2009 passed by the respondent No.1- Assistant Commissioner and also order dated 02.07.2009 passed by the respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner appointing an Administrator to the present temple in question. W.P.No.66630/2010 is filed assailing the impugned corrigendum dated 30.11.2009 issued by the respondent No.3-Revenue Department (Muzrai) Male Mahadeshwara Bhavan, Chamrajapete, Bengaluru.
2. The core question that has arisen for consideration before this Court is as to whether the respondents could have notified Shivamuneeshwara Shantadurga Deva Temple as a notified temple. The Court is also called upon to examine whether the impugned corrigendum dated 30.11.2009 notifying -6- NC: 2024:KHC-D:8681 WP No. 64473 of 2009 C/W WP No. 66630 of 2010 Shivamuneeshwara Shantadurga Deva Temple in Kaikani Village to be read as Shivmuneeshwara Deva is legal.
3. The petitioners in these two petitions are the trustees and they claim that Shivmuneeshwara Deva Temple of Kaikani also known as Sri Shivamuneeshwara Shantadurga Temple of Kaikani family of Chitrapur Saraswath community is duly registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (for short 'the BPT Act') and the said temple is exclusive property of Kaikinikars' family who claim to be the direct descendants of Sri. Shivappayya (Shivamuni) Kaikini of Koushik gothra. In these two petitions, petitioner's claim that the temple is managed and run by the members of the family in accordance with sampradaya and custom propounded by Swami Shivanand and his close disciples since 16th century. The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of respondent-State in notifying the Shivamuneeshwara Deva Temple as a notified temple under the impugned corrigendum which is assailed in the connected writ -7- NC: 2024:KHC-D:8681 WP No. 64473 of 2009 C/W WP No. 66630 of 2010 petition bearing W.P.No.66630/2010. Petitioners contend that respondent-State under the garb of notifying all public temples has tried to notify a private temple by taking recourse to Section 23 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 (for short 'the 1997 Act').
4. The petitioners are also aggrieved by the action of the respondents in appointing an Administrator to the said temple knowing fully well that Shivamuneeshwara Deva Temple is not a notified temple and it was not notified at the first instance. Petitioners therefore contend that the action of respondents in first appointing an Administrator and then coming up with the impugned corrigendum indicating that Murudeshwara Deva and Shivamuneeshwara Deva are one and the same, is one without jurisdiction and therefore, the appointment of Administrator and the impugned corrigendum are under challenge.
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8681 WP No. 64473 of 2009 C/W WP No. 66630 of 2010
5. Pending consideration of the captioned petitions, petitioners have placed on record the enquiry report submitted by the jurisdictional Tahsildar indicating that both the devasthanas are totally different entities. The endorsement issued by the Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure-L is also placed on record. The Deputy Commissioner while taking cognizance of the report submitted by the Tahsildar has deferred the further course of action subject to result of writ petitions pending before this Court.
6. Heard learned counsel for petitioners in both the petitions and learned HCGP.
7. Before this Court adverts to the controversy between the parties, this Court deems it fit to take cognizance of the PTR extract issued by the then office of the Charitable Commissioner, Belagavi under the provisions of BPT Act. It would be useful to refer to the relevant paragraph which reads as under: -9-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8681 WP No. 64473 of 2009 C/W WP No. 66630 of 2010 "¸Àzj À zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£ª À ÀÅ PÁéQtÄ PÁgÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉÃvÀ£¢ À zÀÄÝ zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£Àz° À è £ÀqAÉ iÀÄvÀPÀÌ £Àªg À Áwæ ªÀ£¨ À sÉÆÃd£À GvÀª ì UÀ ¼À ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀAZÀ¥ª À ð À UÀ¼ÀÄ CªÀgÀ PÀÄlÄA§¢AzÀ¯ÃÉ ªÀA±À¥g À AÀ ¥ÀgɬÄAzÀ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛ §gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. EzÀPÉÌ ¸ÀA§AzÀ¥ÀlÖ vÁªÀÄz æ À ¥ÁvÉU æ ¼ À £ À ÀÄß §AUÁgÀ¨½ É îAiÀÄ zÁV£ÉU¼ À ÀÄ ¸Àzj À PÁÖ zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£PÀ ÉÌ MlÖ PÁéQtÂPÁgÀgÀ PÀÄlÄA§ zÀªg À À ºÀwgÛ À EgÀÄvÀz Û É. zÉêÀgÀ PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ¨ÉÃPÁzÁUÀ vÀAzÀÄ G¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ ªÀiÁr CªÀgÉ ElÄÖ PÉƼÀÄîvÁÛg.É £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄÄPÉÃÛ ±ÀégÀ ¤gÀĪÀzj À AzÀ ¸ÀgPÀ ÁgÀ¢AzÀ ¹UÀvÀPÀÌ gÀÆ 19-0-0 ªÀiÁvÁæ vÀgÀÄvÉÃÛ £É. ¸Àzj À zÉêÀgÀÄ PÁåPÀ¤PÁgÀgÀ PÀÄlÄA§zÀÄÝ EgÀĪÀzj À AzÀ ¸Àzj À zÉêÀgÀ ºÉÆgÀVAzÀ PÁtÂPÉ ªÀUÉÊgÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉ vÀgº À z À À GvÀ£ Û Àß E¯Áè. DzÀjAzÀ ¸Àzj À zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£ÀªÀÅ ¸Àzj À ZÁjn DQÖ¤AzÀ ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ¥Àr¸À¨ÃÉ PÁV «£ÀAwzÉ."
8. Shivamuneeshwara Deva Temple is registered on 24.05.1952 under BPT Act. Therefore, what emerges is that at an undisputed point of time, the Devasthana is registered under the provisions of BPT Act indicating that this temple admittedly is a family temple run by the family members on hereditary basis.
9. Before I advert further, it becomes crucial and essential also to take note of the enquiry report prepared by the jurisdictional Tahsildar as per Annexure-J. The relevant portion is extracted and the same reads as under:
"ªÉÄîÌAqÀ G¯ÉÃè TvÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ²æà ²ªÀªÀÄÄ£ÉñÀégÀ ±ÁAvÀ zÀÄUÁð zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£À PÁ¬ÄÌt EzÀ£ÀÄß ªÉÆzÀ°zÀÝAvÉ ²æà ªÀÄÄqÉÃð±ÀégÀ zÉêÀ PÁ¬ÄÌt EzÀjAzÀ ¨ÉÃ¥Àðr¸ÀĪÀAvÉ JA.¦.PÀQð EªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£À« PÀÄjvÀÄ ¸ÀܼÀ vÀ¤SɬÄAzÀ ¸ÀàµÀÖªÁzÀ ªÀg¢ À zÁR¯ÉU¼ À ÉÆA¢UÉ ªÀg¢ À ¸À°¸ è ® À Ä G¯ÉÃè R ¥Àvz Àæ £ À ÀéAiÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÀÄÝ, EgÀÄvÀz Û É.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8681 WP No. 64473 of 2009 C/W WP No. 66630 of 2010 CzÀgAÀ vÉ ¸À¢æ ªÀÄ£À« PÀÄjvÀÄ ¥Àj²Ã®£ÉAiÉÆA¢UÉ ªÀg¢ À ¸À°¸ è ® À Ä PÀAzÁAiÀÄ ¤jÃPÀPë g À ÀÄ ªÀiÁªÀ½î gÀªj À UÉ ¸ÀÆa¹zÀÄÝ, CzÀgAÀ vÉ ¸À¢æ zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£z À À PÀÄjvÀÄ gÀ«ÃAzÀæ Dgï PÁ¬ÄÌt. zsª À ÀÄðzÀ²ð EªÀgÀÄ ºÉýPÉ ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ, ¥ÉÇÃmÉÆ, Dgï.n.¹. PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå ¥Àv,Àæ læ¸ÀÖ£À rÃqï £ÀP® À Ä zsÁ«ÄðPÀ zÀwÛ DAiÀÄÄPÀg Û ÀÄ ¨É¼U À ÁAªï ¢AzÀ ¥Àqz É À ¥Àvz Àæ À £ÀP® À £ÀÄß ºÁdgÀ ¥Àr¹zÀÄÝ, ºÁUÀÆ ¸À¢æ zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£z À À ¸Àܼª À ÀÅ ªÀiÁªÀ½î¬ÄAzÀ UÀĪÀÄ䣺 À PÀ ÀÌ®UÉ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀ zÁjAiÀÄ°èzÀÄÝ, ªÀÄÄqÉÃð±ÀégÀ zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£À ºÁUÀÆ ²ªÀªÀÄÄ£ÉñÀégÀ zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£À EªÉÃgÀqÀÄ ¨ÉÃgÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜU¼ À À zÉêÁ®AiÀÄUÀ½zÀÄÝ, MAzÀPÉÆÌAzÀÄ ¸ÀA§Azs« À gÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÁV ºÁUÀÆ ¸À¢æ ²ªÀªÄÀ Ä£ÉñÀégÀ zÉêÁ®AiÀĪÀÅ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà vÀ¹ÃÛ Pï ªÀUÉÊgÉ ¥Àq¢ É gÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÁV G¯ÉÃè R (2) £ÉÃzÀgAÀ vÉ ¸ÀܼÀ vÀ¤SÉ ºÁUÀÆ CUÀvÀå zÁR¯ÉU¼ À ÉÆA¢UÉ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ ¤jÃPÀPë À ªÀiÁªÀ½î gÀªg À ÀÄ ªÀg¢ À ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛg.É ¸À¢æ ªÀg¢ À ºÁUÀÆ CUÀvÀå zÁR¯ÉU¼ À À DzsÁgÀ¢AzÀ CfðzÁgÀgÀ ªÀiÁUÀtA iÀÄAvÉ ªÉÆzÀ°£ÀAvÉ ªÀÄÄqÉÃð±ÀégÀ zÉêÀ PÁ¬ÄÌt EzÀjAzÀ ²ªÀ ªÀÄÄ£ÉñÀégÀ ±ÁAvÀzÀÄUÁð zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£À EzÀ£ÀÄß ¨ÉÃ¥Àðr¸À§ºÀÄzÁV C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ«gÀÄvÀz Û .É ¸À¢æ zÁR¯É ºÁUÀÆ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ ¤jÃPÀPë À gÀªg À À ªÀg¢ À AiÉÆA¢UÉ PÀqvÀ ª À £ À ÀÄß ªÀiÁ£ÀågÀ CªÀUÁºÀ£U É É UËgÀªÀ ¥ÀǪÀðPÀ ¸À°¹ è zÉ.
(¥ÀÅl.£ÀA 1 jAzÀ 97 ®UÀÛ EnÖz)É ."
10. On examining the registration certificate vide Annexure-D and also the PTR extract issued by the office of the Charitable Commissioner which is documented at Annexure-E coupled with the enquiry report submitted by the Tahsildar which is culled out supra, this Court is of the view that the impugned order appointing Administrator to the petitioner-Trust is not sustainable. The consequent corrigendum issued by the respondent No.3 in W.P.No.66630/2010 is also not sustainable.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8681 WP No. 64473 of 2009 C/W WP No. 66630 of 2010
11. The object of the 1997 Act which is now pending consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court was intended to make the law applicable generally to all Charitable Endowments and Hindu Religious Institutions, which on the date of commencement of the Act were managed by or receiving annuity, taldik or other grants from the State Government, and to other Hindu Religious Institutions which though not under the management of the State Government, require by reason of mismanagement, to be regulated by the State Government after notifying them as Declared institutions. The noble object of the act was to create common pool fund out of the surplus funds of the notified religious institutions, donations for the maintenance and improvement of the needy institutions managed by an independent committee.
12. On examining the PTR extract issued by the office of the Charitable Commissioner, it is evidenced that Shivamuneeshwara Deva is the family God of Kaikinikars'
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8681 WP No. 64473 of 2009 C/W WP No. 66630 of 2010 family and the devasthana is now claimed to be run by the hereditary Trustees. To notify an institution under Section 23 of the 1997 Act, one of the requisite condition is that the religious institution should have received monthly or annual grant from public revenue or any amount under the Karnataka Certain Inams (Abolition) Act, 1977. The authorities while notifying cannot only take cognizance of 23(e). Section 23(e) and 23(ee) are to be read conjointly and only after detailed enquiry, the State can proceed to notify a temple.
13. Though Section 23 to 34 in Chapter-VI of 1997 Act deals with power of the State Government to notify the institutions to be brought under the ambit of the Act, the same can be done subject to satisfaction of requisite ingredients indicated in Section 23.
14. In view of subsequent development, more particularly the report submitted by the jurisdictional Tahsildar, the action of the respondents in declaring under the impugned corrigendum that Murudeshwara Deva has
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8681 WP No. 64473 of 2009 C/W WP No. 66630 of 2010 to be read as Shivamuneeshwara Deva also prima facie appears to be contrary to records. This Court has also noticed that this action of notifying the temple as a notified temple is in gross violation of principles of natural justice. The fact that Shivamuneeshwara Deva temple was not notified at the first instance also strengthens the petitioners claim that it is a private temple and therefore, in absence of the characteristic of a public temple, the respondents were not justified in issuing the impugned corrigendum.
15. Therefore, this Court is more than satisfied that there is a need for fresh enquiry. The registration certificate and consequent registration of Trust under the provisions of BPT Act are vital documents and therefore, petitioners' objections against the notification under Section 23 has to be considered.
16. The Tahsildar report as per Annexure-J after detailed enquiry has also clarified that Murudeshwara Deva
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8681 WP No. 64473 of 2009 C/W WP No. 66630 of 2010 and Shivamuneeshwara Deva are two different Temples. Though respondents may proceed to notify Murudeshwara Deva, under the garb of notifying the said Devasthana, they cannot include Shivamuneeshwara Deva at Kaikini. The impugned corrigendum indicating that both temples are one and the same is also found to be factually incorrect and contrary to the enquiry report submitted by the jurisdictional Tahsildar which is culled out supra.
17. In the light of observations made supra, the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the competent authority. Therefore, the impugned order appointing Administrator in W.P.No.64473/2009 and the consequent impugned corrigendum issued in the connected writ petition in W.P.No.66630/2010 are not sustainable.
18. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8681 WP No. 64473 of 2009 C/W WP No. 66630 of 2010 ORDER
(i) The writ petitions are allowed;
(ii) The impugned order dated 24.07.2009 passed by respondent No.1 as per Annexure-A, order dated 02.07.2009 passed by respondent No.2 as per Annexure-B, order dated 12.06.2009 passed by respondent No.3 as per Annexure-C in W.P.No.64473/2009 and the order dated 30.11.2009 passed by respondent No.3 as per Annexure-A in W.P.No.66630/2010 are hereby quashed;
(iii) There shall be an enquiry bearing in mind the observations made by this Court. The concerned competent authority shall examine the records, more particularly the registration certificate issued by the Charitable Commissioner in 1952 and also the PTR extract which is produced before this Court as per Annexure-E in W.P.No.64473/2009;
(iv) It is needless to mention that before taking any further action, the petitioner-Trust shall be heard and objections shall be received
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8681 WP No. 64473 of 2009 C/W WP No. 66630 of 2010 and thereafter, the concerned competent authority shall proceed to pass appropriate orders.
Sd/-
JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31