Karnataka High Court
Sri. Javane Gowda @ Marilinge ... vs The Commissioner on 28 July, 2022
Bench: Acting Chief Justice, S Vishwajith Shetty
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT APPEAL NO.3707/2019(GM-R/C)
BETWEEN:
SRI JAVANE GOWDA @ MARILINGE GOWDA
S/O LATE TAMMADI KARI GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
REIDENT OF AMRUTHESWARANA HALLI
GOWDIGERE POST, KASABA HOBLI
MALAVALLI TALUK
MANDYA DITRICT 571 40. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI VIVEK B.R, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
THE KARNATAKA HINDU RELIGIOUS
INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE
ENDOWMENTS HAVING ITS OFFICE
AT 2ND FLOOR, MALE MAHADESHWARA
VARTHA BHAVANA, ALUR VENKATARAO
ROAD, CHAMARAJAPET
BANGALORE - 560 018.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MANDYA DISTRICT,
MANDYA - 571 401.
2
3. THE TAHSILDAR
MALAVALLI TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 430.
4. SRI A.C. MANJUNATH @ JADESWAMY
S/O CHIKKASWAMY
MAJOR,
RESIDENT OF AMRUTHESHWARANA
HALLI, GOWDIGERE POST
KASABA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 430.
5. SRI DODDIREGOWDA
S/O KARIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
RESIDENT OF AMRUTESHWARANAHALLI
VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI
MALAVALLI TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 430.
6. SRI RAJANNA
S/O CHANNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
RESIDENT OF AMRUTESHWARANAHALLI
VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI
MALAVALLI TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 430.
7. SRI A.L. LINGEGOWDA @ NADEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
S/O NINGEGOWDA
RESIDENT OF AMRUTESHWARANAHALLI
VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI
MALAVALLI TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 430.
8. SRI S. PUTTARAJU
S/O SALLEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
RESIDENT OF AMRUTESHWARANAHALLI
VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI
MALAVALLI TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 430.
9. SRI DODDIREGOWDA
@ DODDATAMMAIAH
S/O LATE KULLEGOWDA
3
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
RESIDENT OF AMRUTESHWARANAHALLI
VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI
MALAVALLI TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 430.
10. SRI A.D. ERAJU
S/O LATE DODDIREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
RESIDENT OF AMRUTESHWARANAHALLI
VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI
MALAVALLI TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 430. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. VANI H, A.G.A FOR R-1 TO R-3;
R-4, R-5, R-6, R-7, R-8, R-9 & R-10 ARE SERVED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 22.07.2011 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P. 42246-47/2011 AND
ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, VISHWAJITH SHETTY J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra court appeal is filed by the unsuccessful
petitioners challenging the order dated 22.07.2019
passed by the learned Single Judge of this court in
W.P.No.42246-42247/2011.
2. Heard the learned counsel for parties and
also perused the materials on record.
3. Brief facts as revealed from the records are:
The writ petitioner/appellant along with another
claim to be the hereditary Archaka of Maramma Temple
situated at Amruteshwarana Halli, Kasaba Hobli, Malavalli
Taluk, Mandya District, which is minor muzarai temple. In
view of the allegations against the petitioners and having
regard to their criminal antecedents, respondent no.2
had recommended for discontinuing the services of the
petitioners as temporary archakas in Maramma temple
and based on the said recommendation, respondent no.1
has passed the order dated 13.10.2011 as per Annexure-
A, appointing respondent no.4 as a temporary archaka in
Maramma temple subject to certain conditions. The
petitioners being aggrieved by the said order dated
13.10.2011, have assailed the same in W.P.No.42246-
247/2011 contending that the said order was passed
against them without holding any enquiry nor providing
them with an opportunity of hearing, and therefore, the
same was in violation of the principles of natural justice.
The learned Single Judge vide the order impugned, has
dismissed the said writ petition.
4. Though the learned counsel for appellant has
strenuously contended that the appellant was the
hereditary Archaka of Maramma temple, he has failed to
produce any material in support of his contention. The
material on record goes to show that the appellant is
involved in criminal cases and there are allegations of
misusing and mismanagement of funds of the temple
against him. Petitioner no.2 was involved in the case of
damaging the idol of goddess Maramma and he had
admitted the guilt and paid penalty of Rs.5,000/- in this
regard.
5. Based on this undisputed antecedents of the
petitioners, the Deputy Commissioner has sent a report
to respondent no.1-Commissioner who has appointed
respondent no.4 as a temporary Archaka in place of the
petitioners, subject to the condition that he completes his
agama pravara examination within a period of three
months. After the respondent no.1 had appointed
respondent no.4 as the Archaka in place of the
petitioners who were till then performing the duties of
Archaka on temporary basis, the petitioners had filed
O.S.No.261/2011 before the jurisdictional Civil Court with
a prayer to declare them as hereditary Archaka of
Maramma temple. The said suit was dismissed vide
judgment and decree dated 30.06.2017 and as against
the same, the appellants have preferred R.A.No.31/2017
before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Malavalli, which is
pending consideration.
6. The petitioners have suppressed the fact of they
filing the suit in O.S.No.261/2011 and the appeal in
R.A.No.31/2017, and therefore, the learned Single Judge
has observed that the petitioners have not approached
this Court with clean hands, heart and mind.
7. The learned Single Judge taking into
consideration: the antecedents of the petitioners, non-
production of their appointment orders and the conduct
of the petitioners in suppressing the material facts before
this Court, has refused to interfere with the order dated
13.10.2011 vide Annexure-A passed by respondent no.1
to appoint respondent no.4 as the temporary archaka in
Maramma temple with an observation that in the event
the petitioners succeed in their regular appeal, they can
approach the competent authority. We find no illegality
or irregularity in the said order passed by the learned
Single Judge, and therefore, we find no good ground to
interfere with the same. Accordingly, the writ appeal is
dismissed.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
NMS/KK
