Karnataka High Court
Sri Thimmaraju vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 April, 2023
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
WP No. 23909 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 23909 OF 2022 (GM-R/C)
BETWEEN:
SRI THIMMARAJU
S/O LATE KEMPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
BANNIKERE VILLAGE - 572 119
HANDIKERE HOBLI,
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI V.B.SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
Digitally signed by
PADMAVATHI B K SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
Location: HIGH REVENUE DEPARTMENT (MUZRAI)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA MULTISTORIED BUILDINGS,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE MEMBER SECRETARY
RAJYA DHARMIKA PARISHAT AND SECRETARY,
HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND
CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT
AALURU VENKATRAO ROAD,
CHAMARAJAPETE,
BENGALURU - 560 018.
-2-
WP No. 23909 of 2022
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT,
OBBAVA CIRCLE, MANIYUR
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
4. SRI H.R.SADAKSHARAPPA
S/O H.T.RAMALINGAGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
R/AT HEGGERE VILLAGE AT POST,
SRIRAMAPURA HOBLI,
HOSADURGA TALUK - 572 107
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
5. SRI R.VENKATESH
S/O RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/AT DALAVAYIKATTE VILLAGE,
HEGGERE POST,
SRIRAMPURA HOBLI,
HOSADURGA TALUK - 572 107
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
6. SRI H.R.RAJANNA
S/O RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT HEGGERE VILLAGE,
SRIRAMPURA HOBLI,
HOSADURGA TALUK - 572 107
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
7. SRI T.RANGASWAMY
S/O THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/AT SRIRAMPUR VILLAGE,
SRIRAMPURA HOBLI,
HOSADURGA TALUK - 572 107
-3-
WP No. 23909 of 2022
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
8. SMT.MANGALAMMA
W/O MAHESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT GAVIRANGAPURA,
SRIRAMPURA HOBLI,
HOSADURGA TALUK - 572 107
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
9. SMT.MALLAMMA
W/O SIDDARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT GAVIRANGAPURA,
SRIRAMPURA HOBLI,
HOSADURGA TALUK - 572 107
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
10. SRI MAHESHWARAPPA
S/O KALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT BOMMANAPALYA VILLAGE
SOMANEHALLI POST,
SRIRAMPURA HOBLI,
HOSADURGA TALUK - 572 107
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
11. SRI.P.RANGANATHA
S/O PUTTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT KADAVIGERE VILLAGE,
VENGALAPURA POST,
SRIRAMPURA HOBLI,
HOSADURGA TALUK - 572 107
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
-4-
WP No. 23909 of 2022
12. SRI PADMANABHA
S/O PARTHASARATHY
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT GAVIRANGA VILLAGE,
SRIRAMPURA HOBLI,
HOSADURGA TALUK - 572 107
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.V.KRISHNA, AGA FOR R1 AND R3;
SRI SHIVANANDA S., ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R12;
R2 SERVED - UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DTD 18.11.2022, PASSED BY THE NO.02,
THE MEMBER SECRETARY, RAJYA DHARMIKA PARISHAT AND
SECRETARY, HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND
CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, AALURU
VENKATRAO ROAD, CHAMARAJAPETE, BANGALORE, IN ORDER
NO.ADM-8/CR.122/2021, E 505607, VIDE ANNEXURE-F,
PERTAINS TO NOMINATING R4 TO 12, TO THE MANAGING
COMMITTEE OF SREE GAVIRANGANATHA SWAMY TEMPLE,
GAVIRANGAPURA, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA
DISTRICT.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 18.11.2022 passed by the 2nd respondent/Member Secretary of the Rajya Dharmika Parishat insofar as it pertains -5- WP No. 23909 of 2022 to nomination of respondents 4 to 12 to the Managing Committee of Sri Gaviranganatha Swamy Temple, Gavirangapura, Hosadurga Taluk, Chitradurga District.
2. Heard Sri.V.B.Siddaramaiah, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, Sri.B.V.Krishna, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 3 and Sri.Shivananda.S., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 to 12.
3. Sans details, facts germane are as follows:
The petitioner seeks to call in question the nomination to the Executive Committee of Sri Gaviranganatha Swamy Temple, Gavirangapura, Hosadurga Taluk, Chitradurga District (hereinafter referred to as the 'temple' for short) which comes about on 18.11.2022. The term of the Executive Committee of the temple had come to an end and the task of nominations to the Executive Committee of the temple comes about.
Applications were called for from eligible persons to be considered for nomination to the Executive Committee. It -6- WP No. 23909 of 2022 transpires that there were 38 applicants who submitted their applications. On receipt of the applications, the Member of the Legislative Assembly ('MLA' for short) of the constituency in which the temple existed in terms of his communication dated 14.4.2022 recommends 9 names to be nominated as members of the Executive Committee of the temple. The petitioner was also one of the applicants. The recommendation of the MLA leads to the nominations being made by the impugned order dated 18.11.2022. Since the case of the petitioner was not considered, he is before this Court calling in question the nominations made by the impugned order.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the names that were recommended by the MLA are the names that are finally found in the list of nominations. The recommendation was made by the MLA to the Tahsildar and the Tahsildar in turn to the Rajya Dharmika Parishat. The Rajya Dharmika Parishat has not exercised any discretion that is necessary under the Act, therefore, he seeks to term the nominations as political nominations.
-7-WP No. 23909 of 2022
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State would seek to contend that the petitioner has no right to question the appointment of the private respondents 4 to 12 herein to the Executive Committee of the temple, as the petitioner's application was also considered along with others and it was found that the petitioner was not suitable for the appointment as member of the Executive Committee of the temple. He would seek dismissal of the petition. Learned Additional Government Advocate would further contend that mere recommendation of the MLA for such appointment would not render the appointment illegal, unless it is demonstrated that the committee has not independently applied its mind while passing the order on 18.11.2022.
6. The learned counsel Sri.Shivananda S., representing respondents 4 to 12 would seek to refute the submissions on all other issues, but would toe the lines of the learned Additional Government Advocate to contend that independent application of mind is discernible from the impugned order itself and further submit that the petitioner has no right to question the -8- WP No. 23909 of 2022 same as it is not contrary to law. The petitioner being an applicant pursuant to the process cannot now turn around and call that in question is his emphatic submission.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record.
8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. Applications were invited by the State from the Department of Endowments for constitution of the Managing Committee of the Sri Gaviranganatha Swamy Temple. In terms of the invitation so made, 38 applicants submitted their respective applications to be a part of the Executive Committee. Just prior to the said submission of the applications, on 14.04.2022, a MLA on his letterhead, communicates to the Tahsildar recommending certain names to be considered for nomination as members of the Executive Committee of the Temple, they are as follows:
"gÀªÀjUÉ ªÀiÁ£Àå vÀºÀ²Ã¯ÁÝgï gÀªÀgÀÄ ºÉƸÀzÀÄUÀð, -9- WP No. 23909 of 2022 ºÉƸÀzÀÄUÀð vÁ®ÆèPÄÀ .
ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ, «µÀAiÀÄ: avÀæzÀÄUÀð f¯Éè ºÉƸÀzÄÀ UÀð vÁ®ÆèPÄÀ UÀ«gÀAUÁ¥ÀÄgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ²æà UÀ«gÀAUÀ£ÁxÀ ¸Áé«Ä zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£ÀPÌÉ ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥À£À ¸À«ÄwUÉ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀ£ÁßV £ÁªÀĤzÉÃð±À£À ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ §UÉÎ.
-*****-
ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, avÀæzÄÀ UÀð f¯Éè ºÉƸÀzÀÄUÀð vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ UÀ«gÀAUÁ¥ÀÄgÀ UÁæªÄÀ zÀ ²æà UÀ«gÀAUÀ£ÁxÀ ¸Áé«Ä zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£À EzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£ÀPÉÌ FUÁUÀ¯Éà ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥À£À ¸À«ÄwUÉ Cfð DºÁ餹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
DzÀÝjAzÀ F PɼÀPÀAqÀªÀgÄÀ £À£ÀUÉ vÀÄA¨Á ¨ÉÃPÁVgÀĪÀ PÁgÀt F PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ avÀæzÀÄUÀð f¯Éè ºÉƸÀzÄÀ UÀð vÁ®ÆèPÄÀ UÀ«gÀAUÁ¥ÀÄgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ²æà UÀ«gÀAUÀ£ÁxÀ ¸Áé«Ä zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£ÀPÌÉ ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥À£À ¸À«ÄwUÉ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀ£ÁßV £ÁªÀĤzÉÃð±À£À ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ vÀªÄÀ ä°è PÉÆÃjzÉ.
PÀæ¸ÀA ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ / vÀAzÉ eÁw UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀzÀ£ÁªÀÄ 1 ²æà ºÉZï.Dgï.µÀqÀPÀëgÀ¥Àà °AUÁ¬ÄvÀ ºÉUÉÎgÉ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ ©£ï ºÉZï.n.gÁªÀÄ°AUÉÃUËqÀÄæ 2 ²æà Dgï.ªÉAPÀmÉÃ±ï ©£ï PÀÄgÀħ zÀ¼ÀªÁ¬ÄPÀmÉÖ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ gÀAUÀ¥Àà 3 ²æà ºÀZï.Dgï.gÁdtÚ ¨É¸ÀÛgÀÄ ºÉUÉÎgÉ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ ©£ï gÀAUÀ¥Àà 4 ²æà ¦.gÀAUÀ£ÁxÀ ©£ï £ÁAiÀÄPÀ PÀqÀªÀUÉgÉ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ ¥ÀÄlÖAiÀÄå 5 ²æà gÀAUÀ¸Áé«Ä n. ©£ï D¢PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ²æÃgÁA¥ÀÄgÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ wªÀÄäAiÀÄå 6 ²æêÀÄw ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀªÀÄä °AUÁ¬ÄvÀ UÀ«gÀAUÁ¥ÀÄgÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ PÉÆÃA ªÀĺÉñÀégÀ¥Àà 7 ²æêÀÄw ªÀÄ®èªÀÄä PÉÆÃA ¨sÉÆë UÀ«gÀAUÁ¥ÀÄgÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ ¹zÀÝgÁªÀÄAiÀÄå 8 ²æà ªÀĺÉñÀégÀ¥Àà ©£ï °AUÁ¬ÄvÀ ¨ÉƪÀÄä£À¥Á¼Àå ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ PÀ®è¥Àà 9 ²æà ¦.¥ÀzÀä£Á¨sÀ ©£ï ²æà ªÉʵÀÚªÀ UÀ«gÀAUÁ¥ÀÄgÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ ¥ÁxÀð¸ÁgÀy (¥ÀæzsÁ£À CZÀðPÀgÀÄ) ªÀAzÀ£ÉUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ, vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹,
- 10 -WP No. 23909 of 2022
¸À»/-
(UÀƽºÀnÖ r ±ÉÃRgï)"
If the recommendation had stopped at that it would have been a circumstance altogether different. The recommendation is immediately communicated to the Deputy Commissioner by the Tahsildar on 16.04.2022. Though the communication contains the details of 38 applicants, these 9 names are found in the said communication as a separate column. After the said communication, the Deputy Commissioner on 18.04.2022 recommends those very 9 names out of the 38 applicants in terms of the following communication:
"gÀªÀjUÉ, ªÀiÁ£Àå DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ »AzÀÆ zsÁ«ÄðPÀ zÀwÛ E¯ÁSÉ ZÁªÀÄgÁd¥ÉÃmÉ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ.
ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉ, «µÀAiÀÄ:- ºÉƸÀzÀÄUÀð vÁ®ÆèPÄÀ UÀ«gÀAUÁ¥ÀÄgÀ UÁæªÄÀ zÀ ²æà UÀ«gÀAUÀ£ÁxÀ ¸Áé«Ä zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£ÀPÌÉ ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥À£Á ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß gÀa¸ÀĪÀ §UÉÎ.
G¯ÉèÃR: 1) DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÄÀ »AzÀÆ zsÁ«ÄðPÀ zÀwÛ E¯ÁSÉ ¨ÉAUÀ¼Æ À gÀÄ gÀªÀgÀ C¸À¥À ¸ÀASÉå:JrJA8/¹Dgï.122/21-22 ¢£ÁAPÀ:12-07-2021.
2) vÀºÀ¹¯ÁÞgï, ºÉƸÀzÄÀ UÀð vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ºÉƸÀzÀÄUÀð gÀªÀgÀ PÀbÉÃj ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå:r«J¸ï:¹Dgï:97/2021-22 ¢£ÁAPÀ:16.04.2022.
- 11 -
WP No. 23909 of 2022
******* «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ G¯ÉèÃR ¥ÀvæÀ (2) gÀ°è vÀºÀ¹¯ÁÝgï, ºÉƸÀzÀÄUÀð vÁ®ÆèPÄÀ ºÉƸÀzÄÀ UÀð gÀªÀgÄÀ ºÉƸÀzÀÄUÀð vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ UÀ«gÀAUÁ¥ÀÄgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ²æà UÀ«gÀAUÀ£ÁxÀ ¸Áé«Ä zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£ÀPÉÌ ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥À£Á ¸À«Äw gÀa¸ÀĪÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ CfðzÁgÀgÀ §UÉÎ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ »AzÀÆ zsÁ«ÄðPÀ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zsÀªÀiÁðzsÁAiÀÄ zÀwÛUÀ¼À C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ 1997gÀ ¸ÉPëÀ£ï 25 gÀAvÉ CfðzÁgÀgÀ ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì, «zÁåºÀðvÉ, CºÀðvÉ, C£ÀºÀðvÉ, £ÀqÀvÉ, ¥ÀƪÀð ªÀÈvÁÛAvÀ, EvÁå¢UÀ¼À §UÉÎ gÁd¸Àé ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀ ªÀgÀ¢AiÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÀvÁå¥À£Á ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
¥ÀæAiÀÄÄPÀÛ ºÉƸÀzÄÀ UÀð vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ºÉƸÀzÀÄUÀð gÀªÀgÄÀ ºÉƸÀzÄÀ UÀð vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ UÀ«gÀAUÁ¥ÀÄgÀ UÁæªÄÀ zÀ ²æà UÀ«gÀAUÀ£ÁxÀ ¸Áé«Ä zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£ÀPÉÌ ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥À£Á ¸À«Äw gÀa¸ÀĪÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ vÀºÀ²Ã¯ÁÝgï ºÉƸÀzÀÄUÀð vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄA¢£À PÀæªÄÀ PÁÌV vÀªÄÀ ä CªÀUÁºÀ£ÉUÉ ¸À°è¹zÉ. (38 CfðzÁgÀgÀ ¥ÉÊQ PÀæ.¸ÀA.14, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 30, 32, 33, 34 UÀ¼À CfðzÁgÀgÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÀºÀ²¯ÁÝgï, ºÉƸÀzÀÄUÀð vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ gÀªÀgÀÄ F ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀPÉÌ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è.) vÀªÀÄä £ÀA§ÄUÉAiÀÄ ¸À»/-
C¥ÀgÀ f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÄÀ avÀæzÀÄUÀð f¯Éè."
Those 9 names, are those very names which were recommended by the MLA. No reason is indicated in the communication as to why only those 9 applicants should be considered to be the members of the Executive Committee of the temple.
- 12 -
WP No. 23909 of 2022
9. After all the aforesaid communications, proceedings are drawn up on 02.11.2022 by the 2nd respondent/Rajya Dharmika Parishat. The proceedings insofar as it is germane reads as follows:
".... .... ....
ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥À£À ¸À«ÄwUÉ ¸ÀzÀ¸åÀ gÁV DAiÉÄÌAiÀiÁUÀ®Ä ¹éÃPÀÈvÀªÁVgÀĪÀ 39 CfðUÀ¼À §UÉÎ ¸ÀvÁå¥À£É ªÀiÁr f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÄÀ , avÀæzÄÀ UÀð f¯Éè ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥Éưøï C¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ, avÀæzÀÄUÀð f¯Éè gÀªÀgÄÀ G¯ÉèÃR(2) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ (3)gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ¸ÀvÁå¥À£Á ªÀgÀ¢UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
¢£ÁAPÀ:02.11.2022 gÀAzÀÄ £ÀqÉzÀ 3£Éà gÁdå zsÁ«ÄðPÀ ¥ÀgÀµÀwÛ£À 17£Éà ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄAr¹ CfðzÁgÀgÀ CºÀðvÉ, C£ÀºÀðvÉ, «¼Á¸À, ¥ÀƪÁð¥ÀgÀ «ªÀgÀ, ºÁUÀÆ EvÁå¢UÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß ¥Àj²Ã°¹ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ZÀað¹ zÉêÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ¸ÀĪÀåªÀ¹ÜvÀ DqÀ½vÀzÀ »vÀzÈÀ ¶×¬ÄAzÀ F PɼÀPÀAqÀ ªÀĺÀ¤ÃAiÀÄgÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥À£Á ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀ£ÁßV DAiÉÄÌ ªÀiÁr ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥À£Á ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß gÀa¸À®Ä G¯ÉèÃR(4)gÀ ¤tðAiÀÄzÀ°è wêÀiÁð¤¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ." The 2nd respondent/Rajya Dharmika Parishat though by a proceeding drawn has approved 9 applicants to be nominated to the Executive Committee, those are the very names recommended by the MLA in terms of his recommendation dated 14.04.2022. The 2nd respondent again does not indicate as to why none of the other applications did not merit any consideration in their proceeding. The proceeding dated 02.11.2022 becomes the impugned order dated 18.11.2022 which appoints 9 members as recommended by the MLA.
- 13 -
WP No. 23909 of 2022Therefore, one consistent string that travels through the entire link in the chain of events is that, the genesis that began with the recommendation of the MLA, recommending 9 members to be the members of the Executive Committee of the temple, ends with those 9 persons being nominated.
10. If the entire documents so produced or the proceedings so drawn up by the 2nd respondent/Rajya Dharmika Parishat is noticed, what became of the 38 applicants does not even bear a mention. Even the Deputy Commissioner while recommending the names on 18.04.2022 does not consider why other names could not be found eligible for any recommendation. Therefore, it becomes a case where all the 9 members gets appointed only at the behest of the MLA of the constituency. In the light of the entire order being passed on the recommendation or a tacit direction of the MLA as not even a single name is changed while passing the impugned order, it cannot but be termed to be an appointment of the Committee on political consideration.
- 14 -
WP No. 23909 of 2022
11. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of HARIKRISHNA PUNAROOR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA1 has held as follows:
"1. The third respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Udupi, issued a notification under Section 25 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), calling for applications to appoint the Committee of Management to the 4th respondent-temple on 23-6-2009. In response to the said notification, 106 applications were received by the third respondent, including the applications of the petitioners and respondents 5 to 13. Some of the devotees filed objections for appointment of respondent 9 alleging that he is facing enquiry, etc., as per Annexures-K, L and M.
2. When the facts stood thus, the Chief Minister of Karnataka, issued a note dated 24-7-2009 as per Annexure-D to appoint respondents 5 to 13 as members of the Committee of management of the 4th respondent- temple.
3. This note is received by the second respondent- Commissioner on 25-7-2009. He passed an order at Annexure-A, dated 27-7-2009, appointing the very same 9 persons i.e., respondents 5 to 13 herein as the members of the Managing Committee of the 4th respondent-temple. The order at Annexure-A, dated 27-7- 2009 is called in question in these writ petitions.
4. There cannot be any dispute that the note is sent by the Chief Minister as per Annexure-D, dated 24-7-2009, directing to appoint nine persons mentioned in Annexure-D, i.e., respondents 5 to 13 as members of the Managing Committee of the 4th respondent. It is also not in dispute that very nine 1 (2011) 1 Kant.LJ 631
- 15 -WP No. 23909 of 2022
persons, i.e., respondents 5 to 13 are appointed as members of the Managing Committee of the 4th respondent within two days thereafter. No reasons are forthcoming in the impugned order as to why the applications of respondents 5 to 13 are allowed and of other persons are rejected. Thus, it is clear that the appointments so made are based on the directions of the Chief Minister.
5. Section 25 of the Act reveals as to how the Committee of Management has to be constituted. It prescribes that the Committee shall be constituted by the prescribed authority having regard to the religious denomination to which the institution or any section thereof belongs. No person shall be eligible to be appointed as a member in more than one Committee of management at one time. The prescribed authority shall constitute the Committee of management from among the devotees, donors and followers of the Hindu Religious Institutions or, as the case may be, the endowers and beneficiaries of the charitable endowment in such manner that it consists of (i) Pradhana Archaka or archaka; (ii) at least one member from among the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes; and (iii) at least five, of whom, two are women, from among persons living in the vicinity of the temple. No person shall be qualified for being appointed as a member of the Committee of Management unless he has faith in God; he has attained the age of 25 years; he possesses good conduct and reputation and commands respect in the locality in which the institution is situate; and he has donated or contributed for construction, repair, renovation or development of any Hindu religious institution or charitable institution, etc. Rule 22 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Rules, 2002 also prescribes the procedure for constitution of the Committee of Management. The said rule mandates that the nominations received shall be verified by the prescribed authority or by an officer authorised by it in
- 16 -
WP No. 23909 of 2022this behalf with regard to the age, qualification, disqualification, antecedents, etc. Thus, it is clear that the Managing Committee members should be selected by the prescribed authority in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 25 of the Act read with Rule 22 of the Rules. The minimum requirement is that the prescribed authority shall get itself satisfied about the age, qualification, disqualification, antecedents, etc., of the members of the Managing Committee by applying his mind on the subject of appointment. In the matter on hand, such a procedure is not followed. The second respondent herein has blindly followed the note issued by the Chief Minister.
The Act is a self-contained Code. All the authorities mentioned therein are statutory authorities. They are bound by the provisions of the Act. They must act within the four corners thereof:
The State, although, have a general control, but such control must be exercised strictly in terms of Article 162 of the Constitution of India. Having regard to the nature and-the manner of the control specified therein, it may lay down a policy. Statutory authorities are bound to act in terms thereof, but per se the same does not authorise any Minister including the Chief Minister to act in derogation of the statutory provisions. Constitution of India does not envisage functioning of the Government through the Chief Minister alone. All Governmental orders must comply with the requirements of a statute as also the constitutional provisions. Our constitution envisages a rule of law and not rule of men. It recognises that, howsoever high one may be, he is under law and the Constitution. All the constitutional functionaries must, therefore, function within the constitutional limits. In the matter of appointment of Committee of Management, the Minister or the Chief Minister has no say. The Chief Minister or any authority, other than the statutory authority, therefore, could not entertain any application for appointment of a member to
- 17 -WP No. 23909 of 2022
the Committee of the Management nor could issue any order thereon. Even any authority under the Act, including the Appellate Authority cannot issue any direction, except when the matter comes up before it under the statute.
Nothing is placed on record to show that the Chief Minister in his capacity as a member of the Cabinet was authorised to deal with the matter of appointment of members of Managing Committee of notified temple in his official capacity. The prescribed authority being statutory body is bound to act strictly in terms of the provisions thereof. It cannot act in derogation of the powers conferred on it. While acting as a statutory authority, it must act having regard to the procedure laid down in the Act. It cannot by-pass or ignore the same. Factual Matrix, as indicated in - Annexure-D clearly goes to show that office of Chief Minister Communicated the note of the Chief Minister to the prescribed authority. On the basis of the same, impugned order is issued.
In view of the above and as the impugned order at Annexure-A, is fully based on the note issued by the Chief Minister, the same cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27-7- 2009 at Annexure-A, stands quashed."
(Emphasis supplied) The co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held that if members of the Managing Committee of the temple are appointed on the recommendation of the political representatives or is tainted by political interference, it would run counter to Section 25 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. The case therein was of the members of the Committee who were
- 18 -WP No. 23909 of 2022
appointed on the recommendation of the Hon'ble Chief Minister.
The case at hand is, where all the members of the Committee are appointed on the recommendation of the MLA. Therefore, the issue in the lis would stand covered by the judgment so rendered by the co-ordinate bench (supra).
12. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) Order dated 18.11.2022 passed by the 2nd respondent/Rajya Dharmika Parishat stands quashed.
(iii) The 2nd respondent-Rajya Dharmika Parishat shall consider all the applications that are filed wanting to be nominated as Executive Members of the Committee of the temple, draw up proceedings in accordance with law, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of this order and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE BKP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10