Karnataka High Court
Sri Chera Sooryanarayana Rao vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 February, 2013
Author: Mohan .M. Shantanagoudar
Bench: Mohan .M. Shantanagoudar
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAN .M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO.45349 OF 2011 (GM-R/C)
BETWEEN :
1. Sri Chera Sooryanarayana Rao
S/o Ananthayya
Aged about 59 years
R/o Kalkuta House
P.O. Polali, Bantwal Taluk
D.K. District.
2. P. Madhava Bhat
S/o P. Padmanabha Bhat
Aged about 66 years
R/o Bhat House
Kariyangala Village
P.O. Polali
Bantwal Taluk
D.K. District. ..Petitioners
(By Smt. Vaishali Hegde, Adv.,)
AND :
1. The State of Karnataka
By its Secretary
Department of Hindu Religious &
Charitable Endowments
M.S. Building, Bangalore-01.
2. The Commissioner for Hindu
Religious & Charitable Endowments
-2-
Alur Venkata Rao Road, Chamarajpet
Bangalore-18.
3. Deputy Commissioner
Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments
D.K., Mangalore.
4. U. Taranath Alva
S/o K.C. Alva
Aged about 71 years
R/o Kaviraj
Kadri Kambla Road
Cosmos Lane, Kadri
Mangalore-4.
5. Sri Rajarajeswari Temple
Polali, Bantwal Taluk
D.K. District by its
Executive Officer. ..Respondents
(By Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, Sr. Adv., for
Sri S.R. Raviprakash, Adv., for R4;
Sri E.S. Indiresh, HCGP., for R1 to R3;
R5 served)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the
respondents to approve the appointment of the first
petitioner as the Managing Trustee of Sri Rajarajeswari
Temple, Polali as per the Board Resolution of the Temple
dated 22.6.2011 and 9.7.2011 vide Annexures-H and J.
This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing
in 'B' group this day the Court made the following:-
-3-
ORDER
Petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:
a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to approve the appointment of the first petitioner as the Managing Trustee of Sri Rajarajeswari Temple, Polali as per the Board resolution of the temple dated 22.6.2011 and 9.7.2011 vide Annexures H and J.
b) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction setting aside the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner for approval of (Jeernodhara) renovation committee vide letter No.DVS:MS:CCR:454-2010-11/ 46788 dated 29.10.2011 vide Annexure-
N.
2. The records reveal that Rajarajeshwari temple situated at Polali, Bantwal taluk, Dakshina Kannada district is classified as 'A' grade temple. It is a -4- notified temple under the provisions of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 ('the Act' for short). There are four hereditary trustees to the said temple. They are from four different families. The petitioners are two of the hereditary trustees. The name of another hereditary trustee is Dr. Manjaiah Shetty. However, there is a dispute relating to the post of another hereditary trustee between the 4th respondent on one side and Mr. Subhash Chandra Naik s/o Late B. Sadashiva Naik, Arun Kumar Alwa s/o late H. Santa Alva on the other. The 4th respondent herein was appointed as hereditary trustee by the Commissioner on 16.2.2009. The said order was called in question by Subhash Chandra Naik and Arun Kumar Alwa by filing Writ Petition Nos.7167-7168/2009 before this Court. This Court quashed the order of appointment of 4th respondent by the order dated 11.6.2010. While doing so, following observations were made: -5-
"7. Once it is held that the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction to embark upon an enquiry as to who is hereditary trustee inasmuch as it would fall in the realm of civil dispute, which is required to be decided by the Civil Court. I am of the view that the impugned order at Annexure- G is liable to be interfered. But however, by such interference, there shall not be a vacuum at the helm. Indeed the 3rd respondent is required to be continued as a hereditary trustee though the nomenclature does not confer the right of hereditary trustee, which is required to be decided by the Civil Court. His continuance will be for such time until the suit is filed and an interim arrangement is made by the Civil Court as to who should take care of the temple, pending disposal of the suit. "
Ultimately, the writ petitions stood disposed of with the following conclusion:
-6-
(a) Petition is allowed;
(b) The impugned order at Annexure-G stands quashed;
(c) The 3rd respondent shall continue to manage the temple, until the Civil Court decides, as an interim arrangement as to who should continue to manage the temple, pending disposal of the suit.
The said order passed in Writ Petition Nos.7167- 7168/2009 was questioned by Mr. Subash Chandra Naik and Arun Kumar Alwa before this Court in Writ Appeal No.2818-2819/2010 and connected matters. The writ appeals came to be dismissed by observing that the continuation of the 4th respondent herein (3rd respondent in those litigations) as Managing Trustee is only in the nature of temporary arrangement until the matter is decided by the Civil Court. Thus practically the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ -7- Petition Nos.7167-68/2009 was confirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal Nos.2818-2819/2010 and connected matters. Accordingly, the 4th respondent as well as Subhash Chandra Naik and Arunkumar Alwa are before the Civil Court in O.S. No.50/2011 and the same is pending consideration.
3. In the meanwhile, the petitioners herein passed a resolution as per Annexure-D dated 12.8.2010 removing the 4th respondent from the post of Managing Trustee. They appointed Manjayya Shetty as the Managing Trustee. However records reveal that Mr. Manjaiah Shetty did not assume charge as Managing Trustee. Subsequently on 27.3.2011 one more resolution Annexure-F came to be passed by the petitioners appointing the 1st petitioner as the Managing Trustee. The petitioners also approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.10962/2011 for certain reliefs. The said writ petition was disposed -8- of on 18.4.2011 with an observation that the right to appoint fresh Managing Trustee is not taken away by this Court in Writ Petition Nos.7167-7168/2009 and Writ Appeal Nos.2818-19/2010 and connected matters and it is open for the hereditary trustees to convene a meeting in accordance with law and remove the Managing Trustee for the purpose of appointing another trustee in his place. After disposal of writ petition No.10962/2011, petitioners passed one more resolution in the absence of Respondent No.4 and another hereditary trustee viz., Dr. Manjaiah Shetty setting aside the order of appointment of 4th respondent as the Managing Trustee and as well as the order of appointment of Dr. Manjaiah Shetty as the Managing Trustee and the petitioner No.1 is appointed as the Managing Trustee.
In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner on -9- 26.4.2011 for appointment of Managing Trustee. The Deputy Commissioner however directed that the meeting be called by the Managing Trustee i.e., the 4th respondent as per Rule 24(2) of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Rules, 2002 ('Rules' for short) and that the meeting should be chaired by the sitting Managing Committee viz., 4th respondent as per Rule-24(4) of the Rules. Accordingly, the 4th respondent was directed convene the meeting of the trustees for appointment of the Managing Committee. Such an order came to be passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 4.5.2011 as per Annexure-R4(h) filed alongwith the statement of objections by the Respondent No.4. Pursuant thereto, the meeting notice was issued by the 4th respondent as per Annexure-K dated 6.7.2011 fixing the date of meeting as 9.7.2011 at 2.30 p.m. in the temple. Copy of the resolution passed on 9.7.2011 is produced at Annexure-J to the writ
- 10 -
petition. The said resolution dated 9.7.2011 reveals that No Confidence Motion was not passed on that day. In the said meeting, the petitioners seem to have told that already a resolution is passed by the committee consisting of the petitioners and therefore no fresh resolution is necessary. Thereafter Jeernoddhara Committee is formed by the 4th respondent for renovation of the temple and the said committee consists of about 15 members including local MLA and MP as per Annexure-N. Thereafter this writ petition is filed for the aforementioned reliefs.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 4th respondent has no right to continue as hereditary trustee inasmuch as the very appointment of the 4th respondent as hereditary trustee is quashed by this Court in Writ Petition No.7167-68/2009 and the said order is confirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.2818-19/2010 and connected matters.
- 11 -
Therefore the 4th respondent has no locus standi to continue as hereditary trustee muchless as a Managing Trustee; since the 4th respondent as well as another trustee viz., Dr. Manjaiah Shetty did not attend the meeting called by the petitioners, the resolution was passed by the petitioners in the absence of 4th respondent and Dr. Manjaiah Shetty and resolution is valid in the eye of law. He further submits that the 4th respondent be directed to call for meeting of the hereditary trustees and fresh decision may be taken in the said meeting for appointing Managing Trustee.
Writ Petition is opposed by the learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the 4th respondent and the learned Government Advocate. Learned advocate appearing for Respondent No.4 submits that in law, only the Managing Trustee can call for meeting and therefore the resolution, if any passed by the
- 12 -
petitioners in the so called meeting convened has no value at all; it is always open for the petitioners to approach the Civil Court for appropriate reliefs, particularly when the disputed questions of facts are raised in this matter; the very fact that the 4th respondent was permitted to continue as Managing Trustee itself clearly reveals that the 4th respondent would continue as hereditary trustee during the pendency of the suit. On these among other grounds, he prayed for dismissing the writ petition.
Learned Government Advocate brings to the notice of the Court that Jeernoddhara committee recommended by the Managing Trustee is approved by the State Government on 3.1.2012 and since then the said Jeernoddhara committee is carrying on its functions.
5. Learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.7167-68/2009 though has quashed the order
- 13 -
dated 16.2.2009, by which the 4th respondent was appointed as hereditary trustee, has observed in paragraph-7 of its order that the 4th respondent herein (3rd respondent in the writ petition) is required to be continued as hereditary trustee though the nomenclature does not confer the right of hereditary trustee, which is required to be decided by the Civil Court, which means that the 4th respondent will officiate and continue as hereditary trustee till the rights are decided by the Civil Court. May be such arrangement is temporary in nature till the disposal of the suit, but the fact remains that interim arrangement continues till the disposal of the suit. In order to avoid vacuum in respect of post of the Managing Trustee, the 4th respondent is continued as Managing Trustee until further orders of the Civil Court. However, this Court in Writ Petition Nos.10962/2011 has interpreted the earlier order passed by this Court in Writ Petition Nos.7167-
- 14 -
68/2009 and in Writ Appeal Nos.2818-2819/2010 & connected matters to conclude that it is open to the hereditary trustees to convene a meeting in accordance with law and remove the said Managing Trustee for the purpose of appointing another Trustee in his place. Thus it is clear that it is open for the hereditary trustees to remove the Managing Trustee as required under law. Since this Court in Writ Petition Nos.7167-68/2009 permitted the 4th respondent to continue as hereditary trustee, he will continue so till the disposal of the civil suit. Even otherwise, the dispute regarding trusteeship is in between the 4th respondent and other two persons who are not parties to this petition. Even if the 4th respondent is not the trustee, the petitioners would not be benefitted in any manner inasmuch as, only other member of the family of the 4th respondent would occupy the said post.
- 15 -
Be that as it may, the fact remains that the 4th respondent was permitted to continue as hereditary trustee during the pendency of the civil suit. He is also permitted to continue as Managing Trustee by this Court in Writ Petition Nos.7167-68/2009, which is confirmed in Writ Appeal Nos.2818-2819/2010 and connected matters. Thus he will continue as Managing Trustee till he is removed as per law.
6. Rule 24(2) of the Rules clearly reveals that the meeting may be called by the Chairman of the Committee of Management. Rule 24(4) of the Rules reveals that every meeting shall be presided over by the Chairman of the Managing Committee and in his absence, any member chosen by the members of the committee can chair its meeting. In all the resolutions relied upon by the petitioners, the meeting was called by the petitioners themselves. None of such meetings was called by the 4th respondent, who
- 16 -
is the Managing Trustee. Thus all such meetings called by the petitioners and the resolutions passed in such meetings are all unjust. However, regular meeting was conducted on 9.7.2011 pursuant to the direction issued by the Deputy Commissioner. In the said meeting, the 4th respondent was not removed from the post of the Managing Committee. Thus the 4th respondent continues as the Managing Trustee until and unless he is removed from the said post.
7. Since the 4th respondent is the Managing Trustee, it is necessary for him to act in accordance with alw. The Deputy Commissioner has forwarded the appointment of the Jeernoddhara Committee made by the 4th respondent and the said recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner is approved by the State Government on 3.1.2012 and the Jeernoddhara Committee is functioning accordingly. This Court does not find any ground to
- 17 -
set aside the appointment of Jeernoddhara Committee as approved by the State Government inasmuch as it consists of not only two trustees including one of the petitioners, but also local MLA and MP. In view of the same, no interference is called for.
Petition fails and the same stands dismissed. Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent No.4 submits that it is always open for the petitioners to move the application to convene the meeting. If such application is moved by the petitioners, the 4th respondent will definitely call for meeting. The said submission is recorded.
Sd/-
JUDGE *gss/-