Karnataka High Court
Bharata Punarutthana Trust vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 December, 2021
Bench: Chief Justice, S Vishwajith Shetty
RP 54/2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
R.P.No.54/2021
BETWEEN:
Bharata Punarutthana Trust,
Presently No.11, Astithva,
Railway Parallel Road,
Seshadripuram, Bengaluru - 560 020,
Rep. by: Secretary & Trustee. ...PETITIONER
(By Sri G.Kumar, Adv. for Sri Kiran.B.S., Adv.)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Muzrai Department (Revenue),
M.S.Buildings, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bengaluru-560 001,
Rep. by its Secretary.
2. The Commissioner,
Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions
& Charitable Endowmnets (KHRICE),
2nd & 3rd Floor, Mahadeshwara Vartha,
Bhavan, Venkatarao Road,
Chamarajpet,
Bengaluru-560 020.
3. M/s. Magdalene Nalina,
Central Station Assistant,
Office of the Commissioner,
RP 54/2021
2
Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions
& Charitable Endowments (KHRICE),
2nd & 3rd Floor, Mahadeshwara Vartha,
Bhavan, Venkatarao Road,
Chamarajpet, Bengaluru-560 020.
4. Mr. B.K.Sameeullah,
Religious Endowments Tahsildar -
Davangere District,
Office of the Commissioner,
Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions
& Charitable Endowments (KHRICE),
2nd & 3rd Floor, Mahadeshwara Vartha,
Bhavan, Venkatarao Road,
Chamarajpet, Bengaluru-560 020.
5. Mr. H.Abdul Aziz,
District Officer, Minorities Welfare
Department, Office of the Commissioner,
Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions
& Charitable Endowments (KHRICE),
2nd & 3rd Floor, Mahadeshwara Vartha,
Bhavan, Venkatarao Road,
Chamarajpet, Bengaluru-560 020.
6. Mr. Mohammad Deshav Alikhan
Superintendent, Office of the Commissioner,
Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions
& Charitable Endowments (KHRICE),
2nd & 3rd Floor, Mahadeshwara Vartha,
Bhavan, Venkatarao Road,
Chamarajpet, Bengaluru-560 020.
7. Mr. AX D'Souza,
Office of the Commissioner,
Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions
& Charitable Endowments (KHRICE),
RP 54/2021
3
2nd & 3rd Floor, Mahadeshwara Vartha,
Bhavan, Venkatarao Road,
Chamarajpet, Bengaluru-560 020. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri S.S.Mahendra, AGA for R-1 & 2)
This review petition is filed under Section 114 and Order
XLVII Rule 1 of CPC praying to review the order dated
14.12.2020 passed in W.P.No.34473/2018.
This petition coming on for Admission, this day,
S.Vishwajith Shetty J., made the following:
ORDER
1. This review petition is filed by the petitioner in
W.P.No.34473/2018 with a prayer to review the order
dated 14.12.2020 passed by a coordinate bench of this
Court in the said writ petition, to which one of us (SVSJ)
was a party to the order.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this
Court while disposing of W.P.No.34473/2018 has failed to
interpret the true meaning of Section 7 of the Karnataka
Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments
Act, 1997 (for short, 'the said Act of 1997') and the
RP 54/2021
purposive meaning of the said provision of law has not
been properly appreciated.
3. This Court while disposing of W.P.No.34473/2018
along with the connected writ petition in
W.P.No.17045/2016 at paragraphs 5, 6 & 7, has observed
as under:
"5. We have considered the submissions.
Section 7 of the said Act of 1997 reads thus:
"7. Commissioner, etc. to be
Hindu.- The Commissioner and every
Deputy Commissioner or Assistant
Commissioner and every other Officer or
servant, appointed to carry out the
purposes of this Act by whomsoever
appointed, shall be a person professing
Hindu Religion, and shall cease to hold
office as such when he ceases to profess
that religion."
(underline supplied)
6. On a plain reading of Section 7 of the
said Act of 1997, there is no general
prohibition on appointing an officer or servant
who does not profess Hindu Religion. The
restriction imposed by Section 7 of the said
Act of 1997 is that an Officer or a servant
appointed to carry out the purposes of the
RP 54/2021
said Act of 1997 should not be a person who
is not professing Hindu Religion. The
prohibition will apply only if an officer or a
servant is appointed to carry out the purposes
of the said Act of 1997. If an officer or servant
is not appointed to carry out the purposes of
the said Act of 1997, the prohibition will not
apply even if he is appointed to work in the
office of the Commissioner appointed under
Section 3 of the said Act of 1947. It all
depends on the nature of the duties entrusted
to such officer or servant. We may give few
illustrations:
(i) A Computer Programmer or a Data
Entry Operator may be appointed in the office
of the Commissioner appointed under Section
3 of the said Act of 1997 to create computer
programs or to make data entries in the office
of the Commissioner, as the case may be. It
cannot be said that such Computer
Programmer or Data Entry Operator has been
appointed to carry out the purposes of the
said Act of 1997.
(ii) Another example is of a Group 'D'
employee who is appointed to clean the office
RP 54/2021
of the Commissioner. It cannot be said that
such a servant has been appointed to carry
out the purposes of the said Act of 1997.
(iii) The Commissioner appointed under
Section 3 of the said Act of 1997 has a
statutory duty to implement the provisions of
the said Act of 1997. Therefore, the
prohibition under the said Act of 1997 may be
attracted in case of the officer holding the post
of the Commissioner.
7. Therefore, to decide whether the
prohibition under Section 7 of the said Act of
1997 is applicable, it is necessary to consider
the nature of the duties of the officer or
servant so appointed."
4. Therefore, it is very clear that the mandate of Section
7 of the said Act of 1997 was appreciated and considered
by this Court.
5. The petition for review would be maintainable only
upon discovery of new and important matter or evidence or
when there exists an error apparent on the face of the
RP 54/2021
record or if there is any glaring mistake while rendering
the judgment.
6. In the case on hand, the petitioner has failed to point
out any of the above grounds which calls for review of the
order dated 14.12.2020 passed in W.P.No.34473/2018. It
is a settled principle of law that the power of review is
available only when there is an error apparent on the face
of the record and not on erroneous decision. If the parties
are aggrieved by the judgment on the ground that it is
erroneous, the remedy is only in questioning the said order
in appeal.
7. Under the circumstances, we do not find any merit in
this review petition, and accordingly, this review petition is
dismissed.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
KK
