Sri T R Narendra vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 3665 Kant

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 4 T H DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                        BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

            MFA NO.2646 OF 2021 (R/C)


BETWEEN:


Sri T.R.Narend ra
Aged about 48 years,
S/o Late Rang egowda,
R/at Sap thag iri Nilaya,
New Street, Talakad Villag e,
T.Narasipura Taluk,
Mysuru District-571122.
                                          ...Appellant

(By Sri B.S.Nag araj, Advocate)


AND:


1.   The State of Karnataka
     Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
     Dep artment of Muzarai,
     Vidhana Soudha,
     Dr. B.R.Amb edkar Veedi,
     Beng aluru-560001.

2.   The Rajya Dharmika Parishat,
     Hindu Religious Institution
     And Charitab le Endowment Dep artment,
     Represented by its
     Member Secretary and Commissioner,
     Chamarajap ete,
     Beng aluru-560018.
                            :: 2 ::


3.   Smt. Yashod a,
     Major in ag e,
     W/o Chikkarasaiah,
     R/at 3 r d Block, Talakad Villag e,
     T.Narasipura Taluk,
     Mysuru District-571122.

4.   Smt. Bhagyamma
     Major in ag e
     W/o Suresha,
     R/at Hosa Hemmige Village,
     Nayakara Beedi, Ward No.1,
     Hemmig e Post, T.Narasipura Taluk,
     Mysuru District-571122.

5.   Sri T.Kantaraju,
     Major in ag e,
     S/o Bettad arasaiah,
     R/o Hosa Kukkuru Villag e,
     Talakad Hob li, T.Narasipura Taluk,
     Mysuru District-571122.

6.   Sri Anilkumar K.,
     Major in ag e
     S/o Krishnamurthy R.,
     R/o Makanahalli, Ward No.3,
     Bannur Town, T.Narasipura Taluk,
     Mysuru District-571101.

7.   Sri. T.Nanjund aswamy
     Major in ag e
     S/o Late M.S.Basavanna,
     R/at Halebeed hi, Talakad,
     T.Narasipura Taluk,
     Mysuru District-571122.

8.   Sri T.C.Chikkaswamy,
     Major in ag e
     S/o T.C.Dodd aveera,
     R/at 1 s t Block, Talakad Villag e,
     T.Narasipura Taluk,
     Mysuru District-571122.
                                     :: 3 ::



9.    Sri. Basavaraju,
      Major in ag e
      S/o Nanjashetty,
      R/at Kaveripura, Talakad Hobli,
      T.Narasipura Taluk,
      Mysuru District-571122.

10.   Sri Venkatesh,
      Major in ag e
      S/o Late Venkatagowda,
      R/at No.1838, Hosabeed hi,
      Ward No.8, Talakad Post,
      T.Narasipura Taluk,
      Mysuru District-571122.
                                                         ...Respondents

(By Sri K.Dilip Kumar, HCGP for R1 & R2;
 Sri M.R.Krishnamurthy, Advocate for R3 to R7 & R9;
 R8 & R10 - served. Unrepresented)


      This    MFA     is    filed    under     Section    63A   of   the
Karnataka Hindu Relig ious Institutions and Charitable
Act 1997, to set aside the order d ated 15.04.2021
passed by the respondent No.2, the Rajaya Dharmika
Parishat, in Ref No. ADM-8CR/88/2020-21.


      This MFA coming on for admission this d ay, the
Court delivered the following:

                             JUDGMENT

In this appeal under section 63A of The

Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and

Charitable Endowments Act, 1997, ('Act' for short) :: 4 ::

the appellant has questioned the correctness of

the order dated 15.4.2021 passed by respondent

no.2 - Rajya Dharmika Parishat.

2. The second respondent appointed

respondents 3 to 10 as the members of the

Managing Committee of Sri. Vaidyanatheshwara

Temple, Talkadu, T. Narisipura Taluk, Mysuru

District by passing the impugned order. The

appellants grievance is that the second respondent

did not follow the procedure contemplated under

Rule 22 of The Karnataka Hindu Religious

Institutions and Charitable Endowments Rules

('Rules' for short) and thus the appointment of

respondents 3 to 10 were contrary to law.

Another ground urged is that respondent no.7 -

T.Nanjundaswamy is a drunkard and he is unfit to

be appointed for the management Committee of

the temple.

:: 5 ::

3. Learned counsel for the appellants Sri. B.S.

Nagaraj argued on lines with the grounds taken in

the memorandum of appeal. He also submitted

that the second respondent, instead of issuing

notifications in accordance with Rule 22 of the

Rules, published the notification of appointment of

Committee members in the newspapers. This

procedure is not prescribed under Rule 22 of the

Rules. He also referred to the endorsements made

on the letters by the Grama Panchayath Office and

the Deputy Tahasildar, Talkadu stating that

respondent no.2 had not sent any vacancy

notification for being published in the notice board

of their offices. Therefore it was his argument

that appointment to the managing committee of

the temple was not in accordance with law.

4. On the other hand, Government Pleader for

respondent no.1 and 2 and Sri.

M.R.Krishanamurthy for respondents 3 to 7 and 9 :: 6 ::

argued that the appellant had no locus standi to

prefer this appeal as he was not an applicant and

that he was not eligible to be appointed to the

managing committee of the temple because of

pendency of criminal cases against him. They

further submitted that before appointing

respondents 3 to 10 to the management of the

temple committee, respondents 1 and 2 obtained

report about their antecedents and only when they

were convinced that no criminal cases were

pending against them, they were all appointed.

The vacancy notification was published in the

notice board of the temple and thus there was

compliance of Rule 22. In this view appeal is to

be dismissed.

5. The substantial question of law raised by

the appellant is in regard to not following

procedure contemplated in Rule 22.

:: 7 ::

6. The points urged by the counsel are

considered. Rule 22 contemplates that the

notification of the vacancies must be published by

affixing it on the notice board of the institution

i.e., the temple, notice board of the Gram

Panchayat concerned notice board of the Taluk

Panchayat concerned and in the notice board of

the office of the prescribed authority. In the case

on hand, it appears that the managing committees

were to be appointed for 68 temples across the

State of Karnataka and that Vaidyanatheshwara

Temple, Talkadu was one such temple.

Notifications were taken out in the newspapers,

the paper cuttings are produced by the appellant

himself. According to the appellant, in the letters

written by him to the Gram Panchayat, Talkadu

and to the Deputy Tahasildar, Talkadu to ascertain

whether notification had been forwarded to them

by the 2nd respondent for publishing the

notification of vacancy in the notice boards of their :: 8 ::

offices, an endorsement is made by the Panchayat

Development Officer and the Deputy Tahasildar

that they had not published any such notification.

But the appellant does not dispute notification

being affixed in the notice board of the temple.

Therefore there was due compliance of

requirement of Rule 22.

7. The appointing Authority, i.e., respondent

no.2 obtained information about the antecedents

of respondents 3 to 10 from the Deputy

Commissioner. No adverse remarks were found

against them. In this view the allegation by the

appellant that respondent no. 7, Nanjundaswamy

was unfit to be appointed, cannot be accepted.

Though appellant has produced a photograph

depicting the picture of smoking by a person said

to be Nanjundaswamy, no adverse inference can

be drawn against him in this appeal when the :: 9 ::

report given by the Deputy Commissioner shows

that he is not involved in any criminal case.

8. As rightly argued by the Government

Pleader and the counsel for the respondents 3 to 7

and 9, the appellant has no locus standi to prefer

this appeal, because he was not applicant for the

post of management committee of the temple. Had

he been an applicant, the ground raised by him

could have been considered.

Therefore from the above discussion, I do not

find any merit in this appeal. Hence it is

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

sd