Karnataka High Court
Sri Jayashankar vs Ummathuru Urukateshwari Ammanavara ... on 1 October, 2024
-1-
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w
WA No.209 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WA NO.154 OF 2024 (GM-R/C)
C/W
WA NO.209 OF 2024 (GM-R/C)
IN WA NO.154 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1 . SRI. JAYASHANKAR,
S/O. BASAVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
UMMATTURU VILLAGE,
CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGARA - 571 313.
2 . SRI. REVANNA,
S/O. GURU MALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/A: MEGALA BEEDHI,
UMMATHUR, CHAMARAJANAGARA - 571 316.
3 . SRI. SWAMY,
S/O. SIDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/AT: NO.150, TERINA BEEDHI,
UMMATHUR, CHAMARAJANAGARA - 571 316.
4 . SRI.KUMAR R.,
S/O. RANGASWAMY NAYAKA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
-2-
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w
WA No.209 of 2024
R/AT: NO. 713, NAYAKAS STREET,
UMMATHUR,CHAMARAJANAGARA - 571 316.
5 . SRI. PUTTASWAMY S.,
S/O SANNAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT: NO 1287, AMBEDKAR BADAVANE,
UMMATHUR, CHAMARAJANAGARA - 571 316.
6 . SRI. RAMAIAH,
S/O KURI SIDDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
R/AT: AMBEDKAR BADAVANE,
UMMATHUR, CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 316.
7 . SRI. PUTTASWAMY,
S/O. MADHA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/A: NO. 81, K.B. MODALLA,
UMMATHUR, CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 316.
8 . SRI. PRABHUSWAMY S.,
S/O. SHIVANNA L.,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/A: NO 465, NANJANGUDU ROAD,
UMMATHUR, CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 316.
9 . SRI. MADEVANAIKA,
S/O. GURUSIDDANAYAKA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/A: NAYAKA STREET,
SANTHEMARALLI HOBLI,
UMMATHUR, CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 316.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SARAVANA.S., ADVOCATE)
-3-
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w
WA No.209 of 2024
AND:
1 . UMMATHURU URUKATESHWARI
AMMANAVARA TEMPLE,
REGISTERED TRUST,
REP. BY ITS ADYAKSHA,
SRI. S. GURUMALLAPPA,
UMMATTURU VILLAGE,
SANTHEMARAHALLI HOBLI,
CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 313.
2 . SRI. S. GURUMALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS,
ADHYAKSHA,
UMMATHUR URUKATESHWARI
AMMANAVARA TEMPLE,
UMMATTURU VILLAGE,
SANTHEMARAHALLI HOBLI,
CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 313.
3 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
RELIGIOUS CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS
DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING,
DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4 . THE COMMISSIONER,
(RELIGIOUS CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS
DEPARTMENT), 4TH FLOOR, MINTO
SRI. ANAJANEYA BHAVANA, A.V. ROAD,
CHAMARAJAPET, BENGALURU - 560 018.
5 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT,
CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 313.
-4-
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w
WA No.209 of 2024
6 . THE TAHASILDAR,
CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 313.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADV. FOR C/R1 & C/R2:
SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURKAR, AGA FOR
SRI. B.RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R3 TO R6)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 18.01.2024
IN WP NO-6956/2022 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WP
FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2, ETC.
*****
IN WA NO.209 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
(RELIGIOUS CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS
DEPARTMENT), M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2 . THE COMMISSIONER,
(RELIGIOUS CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS
DEPARTMENT), 4TH FLOOR,
MINTO SRI. ANJANEYA BHAVANA,
A.V. ROAD, CHAMARAJAPET,
BENGALURU - 560 018.
3 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT
CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 313.
-5-
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w
WA No.209 of 2024
4 . THE TAHASILDAR,
CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 313.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURKAR, AGA for
SRI. B. RAVINDRANATH, AGA)
AND:
1 . UMMATHURU URUKATESHWARI
AMMANAVARA TEMPLE,
REGISTERED TRUST,
REP. BY ITS ADYAKSHA,
SRI. S. GURUMALLAPPA,
UMMATTURU VILLAGE,
SANTHEMARAHALLI HOBLI,
CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK - 571 313.
2 . SRI. S. GURUMALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS,
ADHYAKSHA,
UMMATHURU URUKATESHWARI
AMMANAVARA TEMPLE,
UMMATTURU VILLAGE,
SANTHEMARAHALLI HOBLI,
CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK - 571 313.
3 . JAYASHANKAR,
S/O. BASAVANNA,
AGE MAJOR,
UMMATTURU VILLAGE,
CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 313.
4 . SRI. REVANNA,
S/O GURU MALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
-6-
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w
WA No.209 of 2024
RESIDING AT MEGALA BEEDHI,
UMMATHUR, CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 316.
5 . SRI. SWAMY,
S/O. SIDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 150,
TERINA BEEDHI,
UMMATHUR, CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 316.
6 . SRI. KUMAR R.,
S/O RANGASWAMY NAYAKA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.713,
NAYAKAS STREET,
UMMATHUR, CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 316.
7 . SRI. PUTTASWAMY S.,
S/O SANNAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.1287,
AMBEDKAR BADAVANE,
UMMATHUR, CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 316.
8 . SRI. RAMAIAH,
S/O KURI SIDDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
RESIDING AT AMBEDKAR BADAVANE,
UMMATHUR, CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 316
9 . SRI. PUTTASWAMY,
S/O. MADHA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.81,
K.B.MODALLA, UMMATHUR,
CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 316.
10 SRI. PRABHUSWAMY S.,
. S/O SHIVANNA L.,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
-7-
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w
WA No.209 of 2024
RESIDING AT NO.465,
NANJANAGUDU ROAD,
UMMATHUR, CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 316.
11 SRI. MADEVANAIKA,
. S/O GURUSIDDANAYAKA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NAYAKA STREET,
SANTHEMARALLI HOBLI,
UMMATHUR, CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 316.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADV. FOR C/R1 & C/R2;
SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SARAVANA S., ADV. FOR R3 TO R11)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.01.2024 PASSED BY
THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No. 6956/2022 IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE WRIT APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGEMENT ON 25.09.2024, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, V. KAMESWAR
RAO, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO) These two appeals have been filed by the appellants challenging the order dated 18.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in two writ petitions being WP No.14910/2021 c/w WP No.6956/2022, whereby the -8- WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w WA No.209 of 2024 learned Single Judge has allowed the petitions by stating in paragraph No.20 as under:
"20. For the aforesaid discussions, this Court is of the view that the action of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 is beyond the scope of Section 43 of the Act. Consequently, the impugned order under Section 42 of the Act is without jurisdiction and unsustainable. Hence, the following;
ORDER
i) W.P.No.6956/2022 is allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 10.03.2022 passed by respondent No.1 at Annexure A bearing No.Kum.E.01.Mu.Aa. Bi.2022 is quashed.
iii) Respondent Nos.5 to 13 are at liberty to initiate proceedings in terms of Section 92 of CPC before the competent court, in accordance with law.
iv) In view of order dated 10.03.2022 passed by respondent No.1 under Section 42 of the Act being quashed, W.P.No.14910/2021 is allowed directing the respondents to handover the key, accounts authorization to operate the bank account and such other acts in relation to the Ummathuru Sri -9- WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w WA No.209 of 2024 Urkatheshwari Ammanavara Temple to petitioner No.1-Trust.
v) No order as to costs."
2. Suffice to state, the aforesaid two writ petitions were filed (i) challenging the order dated 10.03.2022 (in WP No.6956/2022) passed by the appellant No.1 (in WA No.209/2024) and (ii) for a direction to Tahsildar to implement the direction issued by this Court in WP No.21934/2016 dated 09.11.2017. It may be stated here that both the writ petitions were filed by respondents No.1 and 2 in both the appeals.
3. The facts, as noted by the learned Single Judge are, respondent No.1 is a Trust registered through registered deed dated 24.11.2014.
4. One Sri. Puttanna and others filed an application under Section 92(A) of CPC in Mis.No.9/2014 seeking permission to file a suit against respondent No.1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagara rejected the said application by order dated 29.02.2016. Aggrieved by the said order, MFA No.1827/2016 was
- 10 -
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w WA No.209 of 2024 preferred before this Court. The appeal came to be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to initiate such other proceedings, in accordance with law.
5. Respondents No.1 and 2 preferred WP No.21934/2016 seeking direction against appellant No.4 (Tahsildar) (in WA No.209/2024) to remove the seal and to open the lock of the Temple to manage the affairs of temple except Hundi in view of formation of the Trust.
6. This Court, vide order dated 09.11.2017, directed the Tahsildar to handover the key of the Temple and to arrange for Darshan as per the custom that was being followed.
7. It is noted by the learned Single Judge that people of Ummathuru Village preferred public interest litigation (PIL) in WP No.2037/2020 seeking direction to the Assistant Commissioner, Kollegal Sub-division, Kollegal, Chamarajanagara District to take management of the Temple. The Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 18.02.2021, considering the statement made by the
- 11 -
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w WA No.209 of 2024 State Government that proceedings under Section 43 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 ('the Act' for short) have been initiated by issuance of show-cause notice, disposed of the writ petition directing the State Government to ensure that the proceedings in terms of Section 43 of the Act are concluded and appropriate decision is taken in accordance with law within a reasonable time. The Commissioner i.e., appellant No.2 herein issued show-cause notice under Section 43(6) for a decision under Section 42 of the Act.
8. It is noted that a notice under Section 43(6) of the Act to conduct enquiry and to submit a report was issued to the Deputy Commissioner/appellant No.3 (in WA No.209/2024).
9. Respondent No.1 filed objections to the show- cause notice dated 06.09.2021. Even the written submissions were filed on 09.09.2021. The Deputy Commissioner submitted report dated 15.09.2021 to appellant No.2 namely the Commissioner (Religious Charitable Endowments Department) recommending
- 12 -
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w WA No.209 of 2024 categorization of respondent No.1-Temple to be declared institution under Section 42 of the Act. The Commissioner in turn send his proposal vide order dated 14.12.2021 to the appellant No.1 (in WA No.209/2024). The appellant No.1 on the recommendation of the Commissioner, by order dated 10.03.2022, categorized respondent No.1- Temple as declared institution under Chapter VIII of the Act.
10. The case of respondents No.1 and 2 before the learned Single Judge was that, the report dated 15.09.2021 submitted by the Deputy Commissioner is in violation of the procedure prescribed under Section 43 of the Act. Appellant No.2/Commissioner has not appointed or authorized any Officer sub-ordinate to him to hold any enquiry into the objections. Section 43(7) of the Act mandates the Commissioner considering the enquiry report submitted under Section 43(6) to report to the State Government to declare such institution to be subject to the provisions of Chapter VIII. In view of no Enquiry Officer was appointed, report submitted by the
- 13 -
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w WA No.209 of 2024 Commissioner is in contravention of the procedure contemplated under Section 43 of the Act. Consequently, the declaration under Section 42 of the Act is void. It was also stated that the findings recorded by the Deputy Commissioner are contradictory; reasons assigned in the report that dispute has arisen after creation of Trust consisting of 15 Trustees during 2014 is without any basis. Further, the reasons assigned in the report by appellant No.3 (in WA No.209/2024) to declare the Temple as declared institution under Section 42 of the Act would not fall within the ambit of mismanagement as required under Sections 42 and 43 of the Act.
11. The case of the appellants (in WA No.154/2014) who were respondents No.5 to 13 before the learned Single Judge was, while passing the order of declaration under Section 42 of the Act, it is not necessary to record any satisfaction and report of the Commissioner in terms of Section 43(7) is sufficient. No specific procedure is followed for conducting enquiry under Section 43(6) of the Act. It was also stated that the Trust has no right to
- 14 -
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w WA No.209 of 2024 administer the Temple. They justified the report of appellant No.3/Deputy Commissioner.
12. The State Government and its functionaries, who are the appellants in WA No.209/2024, would justify the order passed on 10.03.2022. In fact, the report was justified on the basis of the reasons assigned at paragraphs No.4 to 9 of the report.
13. The learned Single Judge, while allowing the petition has, in paragraphs No.13 to 19, stated as under:
"13. Respondent No.2 has issued show cause notice at Annexure-F under Section 43(1) of the Act. The petitioners have preferred objections and written submissions at Annexures-G and G1. Respondent No.3 is the authorized officer to conduct enquiry in to the objections which is in compliance of Section 43(6) of the Act at Annexure-H. Respondent No.3 has submitted report on 15.09.2021, Annexure-B. Respondent No.2 in terms of Section 43(7) of the Act has submitted a report to the Government recommending declaration of petitioner No.1 as declared institution under Section 42 of the Act. Respondent No.1 acting on the recommendation of respondent No.2 has declared petitioner No.1 as declared institution under Section 42 of the Act. In
- 15 -
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w WA No.209 of 2024 view of the above, the procedure contemplated under Section 43 of the Act has been followed. In the circumstance, the contention of the petitioners that procedure under Section 43 of the Act has not been followed cannot be accepted and the same is rejected.
14. Section 42 of the Act mandates the State Government to declare an institution under Chapter- VIII of the Act on being satisfied with the report of the Commissioner under Section 43 of the Act. As seen from the impugned order at Annexure-A, respondent No.1 except reiterating the conclusion arrived at by the enquiry officer i.e. respondent No.3 and except making a reference to the extent that recommendation of the Commissioner has been thoroughly examined, no satisfaction has been recorded on the report of the Commissioner submitted under Section 43 of the Act to declare the institution under Chapter VIII of the Act. On the basis of report of respondent No.3 and recommendation of respondent No.2, respondent No.1 has to record its satisfaction to arrive at a conclusion for the purpose of Section 42 of the Act. Mere reference to enquiry report of respondent No.3 and recommendation of respondent No.2 and concluding under Section 42 of the Act is only on the borrowed opinion. The order declaring the institution under Chapter VIII by respondent No.1 is without recording satisfaction under Section 42 of the Act
- 16 -
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w WA No.209 of 2024 and without application of mind. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order at Annexure-A cannot be sustained.
15. Respondent No.3 in his enquiry report has referred to various aspects with regard to litigations between various parties from 1944-1945 to 1952-53 and upto 2014. The enquiry report further places undisputed facts upto 2014. There was no dispute regarding the management of the Temple. The dispute has arisen on creation of Trust in 2014 consisting of 15 trustees. This conclusion is without any basis. Respondent No.3 has not recorded any finding as to how the creation of Trust after lapse of 69 years results in mismanagement in the temple. In the same report, contradicting all other reasons, respondent No.3 records a finding that there is religious peace and harmony being maintained while conducting Ummathuru Sri Urkatheshwari Ammanavara Utsav, consisting of 19 communities. The above finding by the enquiry officer is an appreciation of the peace and harmony being maintained by the residents of the village while performing jatra activities.
16. The entire dispute has arisen due to the complaint lodged by respondent Nos.5 to 13 with reference to mismanagement of the Temple by the Trust. The Trust Deed at Annexure-J depicts it as a Public Charitable Trust having objects of various
- 17 -
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w WA No.209 of 2024 public charitable activities at large. The total number of trustees declared is 15 in number. If respondent Nos.5 to 13 have any dispute against the Trust, Section 92 of CPC provides the aggrieved person to institute suit before the Principal Civil Court or original jurisdiction within the local limits of jurisdiction where the Trust is situated.
17. The findings recorded by respondent No.3 that disputes have arisen after the Trust coming into existence in the year 2014, is without any basis. It is not open to respondent No.3 to record any finding on the correctness of the manner in which the Trust has been created, its composition and activities when the same is registered and remedy to redress grievance is provided under Section 92 of CPC.
18. Respondent Nos.5 to 13 have statutory remedy under Section 92 of CPC to approach competent Civil Court for redressal of their grievance in the manner in which the Trust has been created and the alleged breach of objects of the Trust, if any.
19. The contention of the petitioner that in view of Section 78 of the Act read with Sub-section (2) of Section 92 of CPC., suit under Sub-section (1) of Section 92 of CPC is not maintainable, is not correct. Section 78 of the Act excludes applicability of Religious Endowment Act, 1863 to institutions governed under 1997 Act. Similarly, the bar of civil suit under Section 92(2) of CPC is in respect of
- 18 -
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w WA No.209 of 2024 institutions governed by the Religious Endowment Act, 1863. In the present case, the proceedings have been instituted under Section 43 of the 1997 Act and Section 92 of CPC is applicable."
Submissions:
14. The submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants (in WA No.209/2024) is that, the issues which arise for consideration in these appeals are the following:
i. Whether the procedure prescribed under the Act under Section 42 and Section 43 has been followed by the appellant before declaring the Temple as declared institution?
ii. Whether the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 18.01.2024 in WP No.6956/2022 is contrary to law and facts of the case?
15. According to her, the institution which is the subject matter of the present appeals can be categorized as a declared institution within the meaning of Section 42 of the Act. She supports the reasons assigned by the Deputy Commissioner/Commissioner. According to her, the proper procedure as contemplated under Section 43
- 19 -
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w WA No.209 of 2024 has been followed. She states that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is contrary to law and the facts of the case. She states, since there was an objection with regard to the administration of the Temple by a community, the report and the order categorizing respondent No.1 as declared institution is justified. She has relied upon the following judgments of this Court in support of her submissions:
i. Sri. Rama Temple Committee and Others -Vs.-
M/s Veerashaiva Co-operative Society and Another [CRP No.608/2015, decided on 18.10.2022];
ii. B.M. Sukumar Shetty and Others -Vs.- State of Karnataka and Others [2005 SCC OnLine Kar 506].
16. Insofar as WA No.154/2024 is concerned, Sri. D.R.Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the administrative governance of Temples, Mutts and Endowments are monitored by the Government under the Act. The Commissioner of Hindu Religious Charitable Endowments
- 20 -
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w WA No.209 of 2024 Department is empowered to take action under Section 43 of the Act if he has reason to believe that a religious institution is mismanaged. According to him, the learned Single Judge having recorded finding that the procedure adopted by the Commissioner in the present case is found to be legal and proper, the learned Single Judge ought not to have quashed the order in toto on the ground that the State Government has not recorded reasons indicating its satisfaction for passing the order. According to Sri. Ravishankar, satisfaction is essentially a condition of the mind. In other words, it is his submission that the report of the Commissioner in terms of Section 43(7) is sufficient. He also stated, the learned Single Judge, without addressing the issue as to whether recording of satisfaction is mandatory or directory in the light of finding that procedure adopted under Section 42 is proper or whether non-recording reasons for satisfaction is curable or not, could not have quashed the proceedings in toto. He stated that even if the conclusion of the learned Single Judge was that there was no reasoning given, the learned
- 21 -
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w WA No.209 of 2024 Single Judge should have remanded the matter to the authorities for fresh consideration. He also challenges the finding of the learned Single Judge on Section 92 of CPC by stating that Section 92 of CPC operates in a different sphere and has no bearing insofar as action under Section 42 of the Act. Same is an independent exercise of power by the Government under a statute. According to him, the direction of the learned Single Judge to initiate proceedings in terms of Section 92 of CPC before competent Court is wholly unwarranted. He stated that the effect of the impugned order is that the learned Single Judge has sought to take away the jurisdiction and powers of the State Government and the Commissioner for administrative governances of Temples in terms of the provisions under the Act. He stated that it is a case where the impugned order of the Tribunal needs to be set aside.
17. Sri. K.Chandranath Ariga, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 in both the appeals, at the outset, challenged the locus of the State Government, to file the appeal impugning the order
- 22 -
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w WA No.209 of 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge. That apart, it is his submission that there is a small village viz., Ummattur in Chamarajanagar Taluk, Chamarajanagar District and the deity is Sri. Urukatheshwari. The Temple is administered by the Lingayath Community of the village for more than 300 years. The pariwars, also called as Nayaka Community started obstructing the administration of the Temple. Reference is given to the suit in OS No.648/1944-45 filed at the Munsiff Court at Nanjanagud to declare that their community has the right to perform pooja and other rituals. The reference is also given to an appeal in RA No.20/1946-47 filed before the Sub-ordinate Judge at Mysuru and also to an appeal in RSA No.184/1949-50 filed before this Court. A reference is also made to OS No.664/1952-53 on the file of Munsiff Court at Nanjanagud. It was stated by him that the Trust was founded and registered on 24.11.2014 by the Lingayath Community by name 'Ummatturu Urkatheshwari Ammanavara Devasthana Mandali' for management of the Temple. The Trust is managing the affairs of the Temple
- 23 -
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w WA No.209 of 2024 without any blemish. A reference is also made to Mis.No.9/2014 under Section 92 of CPC for a mandatory injunction against the Trustees. The Tahsildar of Chamarajanagar had put a seal on the Temple door. This was challenged by the Trust and the trustees in WP No.21934/2014 which was disposed of on 28.04.2016 wherein it was ordered that the offering in the Hundi shall be taken control by the Tahsildar and the Tahsildar was directed to open the door of the Temple on the first Tuuesday of every month. Finally, the said petition was allowed and the Tahsildar was directed to hand-over the keys of the Temple to the President of the Trust by order dated 09.11.2017. The Trust thereafter continued to manage the affairs. A reference is also made by him to a public interest litigation (PIL) in WP No.2037/2020 seeking a direction to notify the Temple under Section 42 and 43 of the Act. The said writ petition was disposed of on 18.02.2021 with an observation that the State may ensure the proceedings in terms of Section 43 of the Act. It is thereafter, action was taken by the Commissioner, Hindu
- 24 -
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w WA No.209 of 2024 Religious Charitable Endowments resulting in the order dated 10.03.2022. He submits that the learned Single Judge appreciating the fact that there is no report of mismanagement by the Trust in the affairs of the Temple, allowed the writ petition and quashed the Government Order. He also stated, to attract Section 42 of the Act, there must be 'mismanagement'. According to him, in his report dated 15.09.2021 the Deputy Commissioner, has not stated that there is mismanagement of the Temple. The complaint by the Section of the Society against the Temple is that they are not given representation in the Trust. He has made reference to the proceedings initiated in the year 2014 under Section 92 of CPC against respondent No.1 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar in Misc.No.09/2014 to form a scheme for the management of the 1st respondent- Trust. According to him, the scope of enquiry under Section 43 of the Act cannot be enlarged to that of a scheme suit under Section 92 of CPC. Therefore, enquiry
- 25 -
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w WA No.209 of 2024 under Section 43 of the Act is not permissible. He seeks dismissal of the appeals.
Analysis:
18. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties in both the appeals, the issue which arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the learned Single Judge is justified in setting aside the order dated 10.03.2022 passed by the appellant No.1 (in WA No.209/2024) categorizing respondent No.1-Temple as declared institution under Section 42 of the Act.
19. We have already reproduced the relevant paragraphs of the impugned judgment wherein the learned Single Judge has drawn his conclusion, it can be summed up as under:
i. The procedure contemplated under Section 43 of the Act has been followed;
ii. Appellant No.1 except reiterating the conclusion arrived at by the Enquiry Officer i.e., the
- 26 -
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w WA No.209 of 2024 Commissioner, he has not recorded his satisfaction on the report of the Commissioner;
iii. Appellant No.1 has to record its satisfaction to arrive at a conclusion for the purpose of Section 42 of the Act.
iv. Mere referring to the enquiry report without satisfaction, as stated by the learned Single Judge, is only a borrowed opinion;
v. The conclusion of the Commissioner in his report that despite the dispute has arisen on creation of Trust in the year 2014 consisting of 15 trustees is without any basis;
vi. The Commissioner has not recorded any finding as to how the creation of Trust after lapse of 67 years, resulted in the mismanagement of the temple;
vii. If the appellants in WA No.154/2024 (respondents No.5 to 13 in WP No.6956/2022) have any dispute against the Trust, Section 92 of CPC provides the aggrieved person to institute a suit before the
- 27 -
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w WA No.209 of 2024 Principal Civil Court within the local limits of jurisdiction where the Trust is situated.
20. Having noted the findings of the learned Single Judge, insofar as the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties are concerned, at the outset, we shall deal with the submission of Sri. Ariga on the locus standi of State of Karnataka to file the appeal challenging the order of the learned Single Judge. Suffice to state, the learned Single Judge having set aside the order passed by the State of Karnataka, that too with findings that no satisfaction has been recorded by appellant No.1, the same shall give cause of action for the State of Karnataka. So, in that sense, locus of the State of Karnataka to challenge the impugned order cannot be contested.
21. The other issue is whether the learned Single Judge is right to hold that appellant No.1-State of Karnataka has not recorded its satisfaction in the impugned order dated 10.03.2022. To answer this
- 28 -
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w WA No.209 of 2024 question, it is necessary to see as to what was said by the Commissioner and in what manner appellant No.1 has passed the order. We find from Annexure-A wherein appellant No.1, after referring to letter dated 14.12.2021 of the Commissioner under the heading 'Proposal' has reproduced the contents of the letter dated 14.12.2021 and passed the order dated 10.03.2022 by stating that the proposal of the Commissioner, Endowment Department has been examined thoroughly and ordered as under:
" xx xx xx xx xx xx Government Order No: RD 01 MU A Bi 2022 Bangalore: Dated: 10-03-2022 The aspects explained in the proposal has been examined, it has been ordered by declaring the Sri Umathuru Urukateshwari Amma Temple in Ummathuru Village, Chamarajanagara Taluk, Chamarajanagara District as Declared Institution as per Section 42 and 43 of Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowment Act 1997."
22. The above clearly justifies the conclusion of the learned Single Judge that appellant No.1 has not recorded its satisfaction on the proposal of the Commissioner. Being under obligation under Section 42 of the Act, the appellant No.1 is required to form its satisfaction on the
- 29 -
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w WA No.209 of 2024 report of the Commissioner whether or not Hindu Religious Institution has been mismanaged. It could not have simply followed the proposal of the Commissioner to be its satisfaction. The order under Section 42 must reflect the application of mind on the report and the material to arrive at a satisfaction as required under Section 42 and such an order should be a reasoned and speaking order. This we say so because, Section 42 of the Act puts an obligation on the State Government where it is satisfied on a report of the Commissioner that a Hindu Religious Institution is being mismanaged, to pass an order which necessarily has to be a speaking order, as such an order shall speak for itself; the justification behind the State Government's conclusion shall depict fairness and transparency. The same shall also enable the parties to know the reasons behind the decision of the State Government. Even if remedy is invoked by any of the parties, the Court concerned shall be able to see the reasons of the State Government to pass the order in a particular manner.
- 30 -
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w WA No.209 of 2024
23. Having said that, we must also state that the learned Single Judge having come to the conclusion that appellant No.1 has not recorded its satisfaction that institution is mismanaged, was, only required to remand the matter to appellant No.1/State Government with a direction to form its satisfaction as is required under Section 42 by a reasoned and speaking order. Instead, we find the learned Single Judge himself dealt with the objections put by the appellants (in WA No.154/2024) to reject them, to set aside the order dated 10.03.2022. Surely by doing so, the learned Single Judge has conferred upon himself the power/function which otherwise lies with State Government under Section 42 of the Act.
24. We also note the conclusion of the learned Single Judge in paragraph No.16 that, if the appellants (in WA No.154/2024) have any dispute against the Trust, Section 92 of CPC provides the aggrieved person to institute suit before the Principal Civil Court. The said conclusion is on the basis that there is an existing dispute on the creation of the Trust in 2014 consisting of 15
- 31 -
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w WA No.209 of 2024 trustees. But, we note the learned Single Judge has, in paragraph No.16, also held that the entire dispute has arisen due to a complaint lodged by the appellants (in WA No.154/2024) with reference to mismanagement of Temple by the Trust. If that be so, whether the institution is being mismanaged or not has to be decided by the State Government under Section 42 of the Act. The exercise of power under Section 42 by the State Government has no relation/connection with the remedy under Section 92 of CPC. Even otherwise if the appellants (in WA No.154/2024) have a cause, then remedy (if available) under Section 92 of CPC, could be invoked, but the said remedy shall not affect the right/obligation of the State Government to exercise its power and pass reasoned and a speaking order under Section 42 of the Act. Hence, we are of the view, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge [except direction No. (ii)] is liable to be set aside, by remanding the matter to the State Government with a direction that the State Government shall pass a speaking and reasoned order after considering
- 32 -
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w WA No.209 of 2024 all the material/stand of the parties available on record, but without being influenced by the filing of the appeal by the State Government and its pleadings, within a period of three weeks from today. Till then, status quo as existing today, shall continue. The writ appeals are disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
In view of disposal of these writ appeals, pending IAs are also disposed of as infructuous.
Sd/-
(V KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PA