Karnataka High Court
Vasudeva Asaranna vs State Of Karnataka on 17 July, 2018
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ON THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT PETITION NOS.8044 TO 8045 OF 2010(S-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.10964 OF 2018(S-RES)
WRIT PETITION NOS.8044-8045/2010:
BETWEEN:
1. VASUDEVA ASARANNA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
S/O LATE SRINIVASA ASRANNA
2. SRIHARI NARAYANADASA ASARANNA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
S/O LATE SADANANDA ASARANNA
BOTH HEREDITARY ARCHAKS,
SREE DURGA PARAMESHWARI
TEMPLE, KATEEL - 574 148,
MANGALURU TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI M.R.RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI M.N.PRASANNA, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S.BUILDINGS,
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. COMMISSIONER FOR RELIGIOUS AND
CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS IN THE
STATE OF KARNATAKA, TIPPU SULTAN
PALACE ROAD, CHAMARAJPET,
BENGALURU - 560 018.
3. SRI DURGA PARAMESHWARI TEMPLE
KATEEL - 574 148, MANGALURU TALUK,
D.K., REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR.
4. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
(COLLEGIATE EDUCATION), M.S.BUILDINGS,
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
5. DR.GANAPATHI BHAT
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O PARAMESHWARA BHAT,
LECTURER, SRI DURGA PARAMESHWARI
FIRST GRADE COLLEGE, KATEEL - 574 148.
MANGALURU TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.
6. BHASKAR V.BHAT
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
S/O VENKATARAMANA BHAT,
LECTURER, SRI DURGA PARAMESHWARI
3
FIRST GRADE COLLEGE, KATEEL - 574 148.
MANGALURU TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI A.C.BALARAJ, HCGP FOR R1, R2 AND R4
R3-SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED
SRI K.GOVINDRAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R5 AND R6)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE
226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL
FOR THE RECORDS LEADING TO THE ORDERS DATED
5.04.2006 AND 22.12.2009 & QUASH THE ORDER DATED
5.4.2006 (UNDER ANNEXURE-L TO THE WRIT PETITION)
AND ORDER DATED 22.12.2009, (UNDER ANNEXURE-AA
TO THE WRIT PETITION) BOTH PASSED BY THE R2, BY
ISSUE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND
GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.
*****
WRIT PETITION.NO.10964 OF 2018:
BETWEEN:
SRI DURGA PARAMESHWARI TEMPLE
KATEEL - 574 148, MANGALURU TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY ITS HEREDITARY TRUSTEES.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI M.R.RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT.ASHWINI RAJAGOPAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
4
GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S.BUILDINGS,
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. COMMISSIONER FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS
INSTITUTIONS AND
CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS IN THE
STATE OF KARNATAKA, TIPPU SULTAN
PALACE ROAD, CHAMARAJPET,
BENGALURU - 560 018.
3. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
(COLLEGIATE EDUCATION), M.S.BUILDINGS,
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. DR.GANAPATHI BHAT
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
S/O PARAMESHWARA BHAT,
LECTURER, SRI DURGA PARAMESHWARI
FIRST GRADE COLLEGE, KATEEL - 574 148.
MANGALURU TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.
5. BHASKAR V.BHAT
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
S/O VENKATARAMANA BHAT,
LECTURER, SRI DURGA PARAMESHWARI
FIRST GRADE COLLEGE, KATEEL - 574 148.
MANGALURU TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI A.C.BALARAJ, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3
SRI K.GOVINDRAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5)
5
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
CALL FOR THE RECORDS LEADING TO THE ORDERS
DATED 5.04.2006 AND 22.12.2009 & QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 5.4.2006 (UNDER ANNEXURE-M TO THE WRIT
PETITION) AND ORDER DATED 22.12.2009, (UNDER
ANNEXURE-AA TO THE WRIT PETITION) BOTH PASSED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL
BENEFITS.
****
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is a Temple. It is governed by the provisions of the Karnataka Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 2003 and earlier by the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951. It has established the Sri Durga Parameshwari Temple First Grade College, out of its own funds. There is no grant-in- aid from the State Government even as on date. Eversince the inception of the College, its teachers are being paid the State Government scales with applicable allowances. The Temple is managed by two hereditary Trustees. Thereafter, since there were allegations against 6 the Trustees, they were kept under suspension. The State Government appointed an Administrator in the year 2000. The Administrator functioned until 2016. By the order dated 29-2-2009 there was a direction by the 2nd respondent - Commissioner, for Hindu Religious and Charitable Trusts to the Temple to pay UGC pay scales to the teachers retrospectively from 1-11-2002. Questioning the said authority, one of the Trustees along with another person filed writ petition Nos.8044-8045 of 2010 before this Court. By the order dated 5-4-2010 the impugned orders were stayed. After the Administrator ceased to function in the year 2016, the Temple was being looked after by the Trustees. Therefore, the Trustees have filed writ petition No.10964 of 2018. The relief sought for in both the writ petitions are similar.
2. The case of the writ petitioners is that 11 persons were appointed as Lecturers to the College. By the order dated 24-10-2002 an 'Advisory Committee to the Temple' passed a Resolution to extend them full pay 7 scales in 1991, as could be seen from Annexure - R3 produced along with the statement of objections filed in writ petition Nos.8044-45 of 2010. A Resolution is said to have been passed extending the revised UGC pay scales to the Lecturers by the same Trustees in terms of Annexure- R7. The 'Advisory Committee to the Temple' directed the Administrator of the Temple to pay the revised UGC scales. The same was challenged before the 2nd respondent namely, the Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments. The Commissioner by his order dated 5-6-2004 vide Annexure-J, filed in writ petition No.10964/2018, by referring to the finding recorded by the State Government, that the College is not entitled for grant of UGC pay scales at all, rejected the revision petition. The same was challenged in writ petition Nos.46833 of 2004 c/w writ petition No.48831 of 2004 by the teachers of the College. By the order dated 3-1-2006 the writ petitions were dismissed, holding that when admittedly the Institution is not admitted to grant-in-aid, 8 there is no legal obligation to extend UGC scales. On 5-4-2006, on a note sent by the Muzrai Minister, without hearing the Temple or its authorities, the Commissioner directed to extend UGC pay scales to 13 teachers working in the College with effect from 1-11-2002 and also granted them advancement to senior scale and selection scale. The Temple wrote to the Commissioner seeking for a reconsideration. The Commissioner rejected the representation. Aggrieved by the said action of the 2nd respondent, one of the teachers filed writ petition No.14196 of 2006 before the High Court, wherein the order of the Commissioner was stayed. During the pendency of the writ petitions, 10 out of 13 teachers submitted their representations to the Commissioner giving up their claim for UGC pay scales and requested that the State scales be applicable to them. Therefore, the Administrator of the Temple wrote to the Commissioner to the said effect. Consequently, writ petition No.14196 of 2006 was disposed off. While disposing of the writ petition 9 a direction was issued to the Commissioner to pass appropriate orders on the basis of the representations made by the concerned respondents and also the recommendations made by the 3rd respondent Temple within four weeks from then. Thereafter, the Commissioner by the order dated 15-3-2008 in terms of Annexure-Y produced in writ petition No.10964 of 2018, held that since 11 Lecturers have also sought for State pay scales, the question of grant of UGC pay scales only to two teachers out of 13, would not arise for consideration. Therefore, it was ordered that these two persons would also be entitled for the State pay scales. The said order was challenged in writ petition No.6605 of 2008 by the said two Teachers. By the order dated 20-11-2009, the writ petition was allowed. The order dated 15-3-2008 of the Commissioner, so far as it relates to the said teachers were quashed. The Commissioner was directed to consider the representation of the teachers and to pass appropriate orders thereof, within 7 days. Thereafter the order dated 10 22-12-2009 vide Annexure-AA is passed by the Commissioner granting UGC pay scales to the said Lecturers therein. As stated hereinabove, the Temple Archak filed Writ Petition Nos.8044-45 of 2010 and after cessation of the Administrator, the Temple has filed writ petition No.10964 of 2018.
3. Sri Rajgopal, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners' counsel, contends that the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside. That there is no reason as to why the revised UGC pay scales should be granted to the respondent - Lecturers. Firstly is the fact that the Resolution sought to be relied on by the respondents-Lecturers in support of their case, was passed by the then hereditary Trustees who were subsequently placed under suspension and an enquiry was held against them for various charges. Secondly, that the State Government themselves, as could be seen from the order of the Commissioner dated 5-6-2004, were of the view that the question of granting UGC pay scales to the 11 Lecturers would not arise for consideration. Notwithstanding the decision of the Government, the Commissioner has furnished his own view contrary to that of the State themselves. Furthermore, the decisions have been taken when the Administrator was holding the charge of the Temple. Therefore, on these grounds the order is erroneous and liable to be set aside.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-Lecturers contends that there is a delay in challenging these orders. That so far as writ petition Nos.8044-45 of 2010 is concerned, the prayer sought for is firstly to set aside the order dated 5-4-2006 as well as the order dated 22-12-2009 passed by the Commissioner. Therefore, there is a huge delay in challenging the said orders. Therefore, the writ petitions would have to be dismissed on the ground of delay itself. That there is substantial delay even in filing writ petition No.10964 of 2018. The delay occasioned herein is far more than as occasioned in writ petition Nos.8044-45 of 2010. Hence, he 12 pleads that on the ground of delay itself, the writ petitions require to be rejected.
5. On hearing learned counsels, I'am of the view that the writ petitions cannot be rejected merely on the ground of delay. So far as writ petition Nos. 8044 to 8045 of 2010 is concerned, as narrated hereinabove, it was challenged by the two writ petitioners, wherein one of them was a trustee of the said Temple. The writ petition was filed during the existence of the Administrator, seeking to question the order passed by the Commissioner, firstly dated 5-4-2006 and thereafter the order dated 22-12-2009. Therefore, considering the order dated 22-12-2009, which granted relief to the Lecturers, it cannot be said that there is a delay in challenging the same. Hence, I'am of the considered view that there is no delay in challenging the impugned order in writ petition Nos.8044-45 of 2010.
13
6. So far as writ petition No.10964 of 2018 is concerned, the same reasons as in writ petition Nos.8044- 45 of 2010 with regard to delay would be applicable to this case also. Furthermore, what is of relevance is that the writ petition is filed by the Temple. The Temple was managed by the Administrator right up-to the year 2016. Thereafter the hereditary Trustees have been brought into charge of the Temple. Immediately thereafter they have challenged the same in the aforesaid writ petitions. Therefore, it cannot be said that the delay as narrated therein is for the aforesaid reasons. Hence, I do not find any reason to reject the writ petitions, so far as the ground of delay is concerned.
7. Further, the objection by the respondent is that the contention of the petitioners that the persons who are entitled for grant of UGC pay scales are not the very persons who have been placed under suspension or an enquiry has been conducted, is incorrect. That they are 14 two different persons. They are not the same persons who are being charged for mismanagement or other conduct.
8. The material on record, would indicate that the initial Resolution was passed in the year 1991, by two of the trustees. Subsequently they died. The order making the revised pay scales was passed on 31-7-2000 by all the Trustees who succeeded on the death of the earlier Trustees. Two Trustees were the very persons who were placed under suspension and an enquiry was ordered and subsequently have also been removed. Therefore, the contention of the respondent that the Trustees who passed the original Resolution are not the persons who have been placed under suspension is factually incorrect. Hence, the said contention cannot be accepted.
9. Further, the contention of the petitioner is that the Government themselves have opined that UGC pay scales to the Lecturers cannot be granted, as could be seen from the order of the Commissioner vide Annexure-J 15 dated 5-6-2004. Under these circumstances, when the Government themselves have decided that the question of granting UGC pay scales could not be made applicable to the Lecturers, the Commissioner could not have exceeded his jurisdiction in passing an order contrary to the decision of the Government.
10. In this regard, a specific question was asked to the learned Government Advocate. The learned Government Advocate submits that notwithstanding the statement of objections filed by him in writ petition Nos.8044-45 of 2010, that it is always the decision of the Government, that would have precedence over the orders to be passed by its officials. When the Government have taken a stand that the UGC scales could not be extended to the Lectures, the order of the Commissioner overriding the opinion of the State would be unsustainable.
11. It was also contended by the respondents that the writ petitioners in writ petition Nos.8043-45 of 2010 16 have no locus to question the impugned order when there are other Archaks of the Temple. Therefore, an Archak cannot be an interested person in the welfare of the Temple. Therefore, he is in no way concerned with the affairs of the Temple. The same is disputed by the petitioners.
12. On hearing learned counsels on this issue, I'am of the considered view that such a contention cannot be accepted. An Archak in the Temple is no doubt interested in the well being of the Temple. However, it is not the Archak alone, but every devotee is also interested in the welfare of the Temple. Therefore, to hold that only because a person is not in the actual management of the Temple he cannot have right to challenge the order, may not be a correct contention to be accepted. Even otherwise as on that date, the Temple was under the management of the Administrator. It was the apprehension of the writ petitioners that the case of the Temple would be defeated if they did not maintain the writ 17 petitions. Therefore, to non-suit them on the ground that they are not incharge of the Temple and therefore would not have any locus, in my considered view, cannot be accepted.
13. Under these circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that the orders passed by the Commissioner cannot be sustained.
Consequently, both the writ petitions are allowed. The order passed by the respondent - Commissioner dated 5-4-2006 vide Annexure-L and the order Annexure-AA dated 22-12-2009 passed by the 2nd respondent in writ petition Nos.8044-45 are quashed. In view of the aforesaid order, the orders dated 5-4-2006 and 22-12-2009 passed by the 2nd respondent in writ petition No.10964 of 2018 stands set aside.
Rule made absolute.
SD/-
JUDGE Rsk/-