Karnataka High Court
Udayakumar Poojari vs The Commissioner And Ors on 21 May, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3291
WP No.201261 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MAY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.201261 OF 2024 (GM-R/C)
BETWEEN:
SRI. UDAYAKUMAR POOJARI
S/O MALLIKARJUN POOJARI,
AGE: 35 YEARS,
OCC: ARCHAKA OF HULIGEMMA TEMPLE,
R/O : NEAR SHANKARALINGA TEMPLE,
AROLI VILLAGE, TQ: MANVI,
DIST : RAICHUR - 584 203.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER,
Digitally signed HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND
by SACHIN CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF DEPARTMENT ALURU VENKATA RAO ROAD,
KARNATAKA NEAR CENTRAL POLICE STATION,
CHAMARAJAPET, BENGALURU - 560 018.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
RAICHUR, DIST : RAICHUR - 584 101.
3. THE TAHASILDAR
MANVI, TQ; MANVI,
DIST : RAICHUR - 584 123.
CUM ADMINISTRATOR,
SRI HULIGEMMA DEVI TEMPLE AROLI,
TQ: MANVI, DIST : RAICHUR.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3291
WP No.201261 of 2024
4. SRI. RAJU POOJARI
S/O HULIGEPPA POOJARI,
AGED ABOUT: 48 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
5. SMT. SUDHAMMA
W/O KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT: 54 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
6. SRI. JAMADAGNI POOJARI
S/O HULIGEPPA POOJARI,
AGED ABOUT: 38 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
7. SRI. SOOGURAPPA POOJARI
S/O HULIGEPPA POOJARI,
AGED ABOUT: 30 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 7 ARE
R/O: NEAR SHANKARALINGA TEMPLE,
AROLI VILLAGE, KURUDI HOBLI,
TQ: MANVI, DIST : RAICHUR - 584 203.
8. SRI. SHEKARAPPA
S/O MUNIYAPPA POOJARI,
AGED ABOUT: 34 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
9. SRI. TIMMAPPA
S/O SHEKARAPPA POOJARI,
AGED ABOUT: 59 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
10. SRI. BALARAJU
S/O NALLAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT: 37 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3291
WP No.201261 of 2024
11. SRI. SURESH
S/O NARASINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT: 55 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
12. SRI. NARASAPPA
S/O RAMANNA,
AGED ABOUT: 48 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
13. SRI. KRISHNAPPA
S/O HULIGEPPA DONGOOR,
AGED ABOUT: 48 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
RESPONDENTS NO.8 TO 13 ARE
R/O: AROLI VILLAGE,
NEAR HULIGEMMA TEMPLE,
KURUDI HOBLI, TQ: MANVI,
DIST : RAICHUR - 584 203.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, H.C.G.P., FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. JAYANANDAYYA AND SRI ANAND V., FOR R4 TO R13)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
A) QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.03.2024 BEARING
NO.ADM 07 AP/16/2023-24, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.1, VIDE ANNEXURE-J, CONSEQUENTLY THE ORDER DATED
14.05.2024 BEARING NO.KANDAYA/DEVASTANA/AA.HU.
DE.AA/2023/24 ISSUED BY TEH RESPONDENT NO.3, VIDE
ANNEXURE-K., AND SUCH FURTHER ORDER OTHER RELIEFS BE
GRANTED TO THE PETITIONER TO WHICH THE PETITIONER
WOULD BE FOUND ENTITLED TO ON THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3291
WP No.201261 of 2024
ORDER
In this petition, the petitioner has called in question an order passed by the respondent No.1 dated 14.03.2024 in case No. ADM 07 AP/16/2023-24 as well as the order dated passed by the respondent No.3 dated 14.05.2024 appointing the respondents No.4 to 13 as the Archakas of Sri. Huligemma Devi Temple, Aroli village, Tq: Manvi, until further orders that may be passed by the respondent No.2.
02. The facts in brief are that the petitioner claims to be the hereditary Archaka of Sri. Huligemma Devi Temple, which was a notified institution under the provisions of the erstwhile Karnataka Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1927. He contends that his father and a person named Kristappa were performing poojas at the Temple. The villagers of Aroli lodged complaints against them which culminated in an order passed by the respondent No.2 removing the father of the petitioner and the deceased - Kristappa as the Archaka -5- NC: 2024:KHC-K:3291 WP No.201261 of 2024 and Poojari and appointing Mr. Venkatesh s/o Late Anantacharya as the Archaka of the Temple. This was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.21623/2013 and W.P.No.21572/2014. The writ petitions were disposed of directing the parties to avail the remedy of an appeal. An appeal was thereafter preferred which was allowed and the order passed by the respondent No.2 was set-aside and the case was remitted to the respondent No.2 for reconsideration. The respondent No.2 thereafter held fresh proceedings after notifying all the parties interested. The respondent No.2 then passed an order dated 11.06.2022, appointing the petitioner as the Archaka of the Temple. This was challenged by the respondents No.4 to 13 herein before the respondent No.1 in Revision Petition No.16/2023. The respondent No.1 in terms of an order dated 14.03.2024 allowed the appeal and remitted the case back to the Deputy Commissioner for reconsideration. In the meanwhile, the respondent No.3 acting upon oral directions of the respondent No.2, appointed the respondents No.4 to 13 as the Archakas of the Temple, -6- NC: 2024:KHC-K:3291 WP No.201261 of 2024 pending further orders that may be passed by the respondent No.2. The orders passed by the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.3, are challenged by the petitioner before this Court in this writ petition.
03. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.1 committed an error in exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 63 of the Act of 1997 in view of the express bar contained under Section 63 (2) of the Act of 1997. He further contends that the respondents No.4 to 13 were bound to file an appeal before the appropriate appellate authority under sub- clause (iii) of clause 6 of Section 25 - B of the Act of 1997 and therefore, the revision petition was not maintainable. He further contends that respondents No.4 to 13 had all consented before respondent No.2 to continue the petitioner as the Archaka of the Temple. Therefore, they were estopped from challenging the order passed by the respondent No.2 before the respondent No.1. He further contended that the respondent No.3 had no authority -7- NC: 2024:KHC-K:3291 WP No.201261 of 2024 under law to act on the oral directions issued by the respondent No.2 to appoint the respondents No.4 to 13 as the interim Archakas of the Temple in question until further orders by the respondent No.2. He therefore prays that the petitioner be permitted to continue as the Archaka of the Temple. He contends that the rituals in the Temple are going on and that the petitioner has prepared himself for certain activities and therefore, the petitioner should be permitted to perform the rituals.
04. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the respondents No.4 to 13 claimed before the respondent No.1 that they too were hereditary Archakas who were performing the rituals in the Temple and that the petitioner had fraudulently created documents to seem as if the respondents No.4 to 13 had consented to the continuation of the petitioner as the Archaka of the Temple and produced them before the respondent No.2, who passed an order appointing the petitioner as the hereditary Archaka. He contended that it -8- NC: 2024:KHC-K:3291 WP No.201261 of 2024 was in that context the respondent No.1 after being satisfied that no enquiry was conducted by the respondent No.2 before passing the order dated 11.06.2022 passed the impugned order and remitted the case to the respondent No.2 for fresh consideration. He submits that since annual festivities are round the corner, the respondent No.2 following the directions of respondent No.1 to make suitable arrangements for performance of pooja and other rituals, directed the respondent No.3 to make appropriate interim arrangements, following which he passed the impugned order dated 14.05.2024 appointing the respondents No.4 to 13 to perform the poojas and other rituals, pending further orders of the respondent No.2. He submits that the annual rituals in the Temple are performed from several years and due to the ongoing dispute between the petitioner and the respondents No.4 to 13, the said rituals cannot be stopped. Therefore, in that situation the respondent No.3, based on the oral directions of the respondent No.2 had passed the impugned order.
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3291 WP No.201261 of 2024
05. The learned counsel for the respondents No.4 to 13 supported the contentions of the learned High Court Government Pleader.
06. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned High Court Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the respondents No.4 to 13.
07. The averments in the writ petition disclose that the petitioner admitted that the respondents No.4 to 7 were hereditary Archakas of Sri. Huligemma Devi Temple, a notified institution. The petitioner claimed that his father and Mr. Kristappa were earlier performing the duties of Archaka, but were removed due to inappropriate behavior and misappropriation and a person named Venkatesh was appointed as Archaka. This was challenged by the father of the petitioner in W.P.No.21623/2013 and W.P.21572/2014. The petitions were disposed off directing the parties to avail the remedy of an appeal. An appeal was thereafter filed before the respondent No.1, which
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3291 WP No.201261 of 2024 was allowed and the order passed by the respondent No.2 was set-aside and the case was remitted to respondent No.2 for fresh consideration. The respondent No.2 thereafter held proceedings. It is seen that the petitioner had furnished certain affidavits of the respondents No.4, 6 and 7 before the respondent No.2 wherein they allegedly declared that they had no objection for appointing the petitioner as the hereditary Archakas. The respondent No.2 based on the documents produced before him held that the Archakaship of the Temple was held hereditarily and that all rituals were performed by the family of the petitioner. He also held that the respondents No.4, 6 and 7 had submitted affidavits stating that they had no objection to appoint the petitioner as the hereditary Archaka. The respondents No.2 therefore allowed the appeal and appointed the petitioner as the hereditary Archaka of the Temple. The respondents No.4 to 13 alleging that they had not submitted any affidavits filed a revision petition before the respondent No.1. It is no doubt true that under Section 63 (2) of the Act, 1997 a revision petition is not maintainable when a remedy of an appeal is provided.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3291 WP No.201261 of 2024 When a question arises whether an Archaka has hereditary right, it is the Deputy Commissioner who has to decide the dispute, in an appeal that may be filed, as provided under Section 25 - B (6) (iii) of the Act, 1997.
08. The question therefore is whether the respondents No.4 to 13 were claiming hereditary rights or they were merely pressing their entitlement along with the petitioner. Since, the petitioner has admitted that respondents No.5 to 7 also have hereditary right of Archakaship, the dispute raised by the respondents No.4 to 13 is not regarding the right itself, but was regarding their entitlement to it. Therefore, the contention that the respondents No.4 to 13 must have filed an appeal under Section 25 - B (6) (iii), is not justified and therefore, the revision petition at the instance of respondents No.4 to 13 before the respondent No.1 was maintainable. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 was without jurisdiction dos not merit consideration and is accordingly rejected.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3291 WP No.201261 of 2024
09. Insofar as the impugned order passed by the respondent No.3 is concerned, no doubt he is not an officer authorized under the Act of 1997 to pass any order appointing the respondents No.4 to 13 as the Archakas of the Temple. The respondent No.2 who was seized of the matter could not have orally instructed the respondent No.3 to pass interim orders, more particularly when the Act, 1997 did not authorize him to delegate his judicial function. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.3 being one without jurisdiction, is liable to be set-aside.
10. However, we cannot loose sight of the fact that the respondent No.1 while allowing the revision petition filed by the respondents No.4 to 13 directed the respondent No.2 to make appropriate interim arrangement to ensure continuation of all rituals and ceremonies in the Temple. Since, the question whether the petitioner is entitled to be appointed as Pradhan Archaka or not and whether anyone amongst respondents No.4 to 13 are entitled to be appointed as Pradhan Archaka or Archaka is
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3291 WP No.201261 of 2024 yet to be decided by the respondent No.2, it is appropriate to involve both the petitioner and respondents No.4 to 13 in performing the poojas and rituals in the temple, taking into account the interest of the villagers and to ensure the continuation of the religious practices in the Temple. Hence, the following order is passed;
ORDER i. The Writ Petition is allowed in part.
ii. The impugned order passed by the Tahasildar appointing the respondents No.4 to 13 as the Archakas of Sri. Huligemma Devi Temple, is set- aside. However, the respondents No.4 to 13 and the petitioner shall par take in performance of the rituals and ceremonies in the Temple in accordance with traditions followed in the Temple and without causing any disturbance or breach of peace in the Temple and in line with the directions of a committee of management, if constituted.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3291 WP No.201261 of 2024 iii. It is made clear that in the event of any breach of peace in the Temple, the respondent No.2 shall forthwith appoint any other Archaka in the village not belonging to the family of the petitioner and the respondents No.4 to 13 to conduct the rituals, ceremonies and poojas in the Temple, until disposal of the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner. iv. The above arrangements are subject to outcome of the proceedings before the respondent No.2.
Sd/-
JUDGE KJJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6 CT:VK