Sri Manjunatha Archaka vs The Assistant Commissioner on 24 January, 2013

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Manjunatha Archaka vs The Assistant Commissioner on 24 January, 2013

Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar

Bench: Mohan .M. Shantanagoudar

                            -1-


  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

        DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2013

                          BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAN .M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

         WRIT PETITION NO.3868/2013 (GM-R/C)

BETWEEN :

Sri Manjunatha Archaka
Aged about 52 years
S/o Sheshayya Archaka
Hattiyangadi
Kundapur Taluk
Udupi District-576 283.                        ..Petitioner

(By Sri Vinayaka B for Ashok Haranahalli Associates, Adv.,)

AND :

1. The Assistant Commissioner
   Hindu Religious & Charitable
   Endowments & President
   Jilla Dharmika Parishat
   Udupi, Udupi District-576101.

2. The Deputy Commissioner
   Hindu Religious and Charitable
   Endowments, Udupi
   Udupi District-576101.

3. The Rajya Dharmika Parishat
   2nd Floor, Sri Malemahadeshwara
   Varta Bhavan, Alur Venkatarao
   Road, Chamarajpet, Bangalore
   Rep by the Commissioner
                               -2-


   Dept. of Hindu Religious &
   Charitable Endowments.

4. The State of Karnataka
   by the Principal Secretary
   Department of Hindu Religious
   & Charitable Endowments
   M.S. Building
   Bangalore-560 001.                      ..Respondents

(By Sri E.S. Indiresh, HCGP., for R1, R2 and R4;
Sri Sachin B.S., Adv., for R3)

      This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to quash the notification
dated 3.12.12 vide Annexure-A issued by the R1 inviting
applications from the public for the membership of Managing
Committee in so far as it pertains to the temple as Sl.No.44,
Kundapura Taluk in the notification is concerned.

      This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing
this day the Court made the following:-


                         ORDER

Learned Government Advocate takes notice for respondents 1, 2 and 4.

Sri B.S.Sachin is directed to take notice for respondent No.3.

-3-

Heard.

The petitioner has sought for the following relief:-

"Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and quash the Notification dated 3.12.2012 bearing No. DVS: EST (2) CR71/2012-13/57169) (produced as Annexure-A)issued by the 1st respondent inviting applicatiosn from the public for the membership of managing committee, in so far as it pertains to the temple at Sl.No.44, Kundapura Taluk in the notification is concerned"

By virtue of the impugned notification at Annexure-A, dated 3.12.2012, the Deputy Commissioner has called for applications for appointment of members of Trust Committee.

2. Petitioner's case is that he has established Maraladevi Temple at Hattiyangadi Village, Kundapur -4- Taluk. It is an old temple founded by the ancestors of the petitioner. The ancestors of the petitioner have been performing pooja in Garbhadugi of the said temple since long time. Now the petitioner has been performing pooja. However, the said temple is notified by the State Government vide its notification dated 30.4.2003.

3. It seems, the petitioner has approached the third respondent praying for denotifying the said temple. Notice is issued to the petitioner to appear. One of such notices is produced at Annexure-E, dated 3.11.2012, by which the petitioner is directed to appear on 7.12.2012. Nothing is forthcoming as to what has happened thereafter.

Be that as it may, the petitioner is before the third respondent and he will have to pursue his remedy before the third respondent for denotification. There is no interim order granted by any -5- authorities/Courts in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the relief as sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted, particularly when the order/notification notifying temple is neither recalled or modified by the State till this day. The petitioner has to pursue his remedy before the third respondent.

The third respondent is directed to complete the whole process of hearing and decide the application filed by the petitioner as early as possible, but not later than the outer limit of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

However, in the meanwhile, no steps shall be taken to appoint the Trustees/Archaks for the temple in question.

It is made clear that this order is made having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Hence this order shall not be a precedent. -6-

With the aforesaid observations, writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE *ck/nk-

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court