Sri M R Jayaram vs The Deputy Commissioner
2022 Latest Caselaw 11566 Kant

                           1

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                        PRESENT

             THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
                 ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

                          AND

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

              W.A.No.62/2022(GM-R/C)

BETWEEN:

1.     SRI M.R. JAYARAM
       AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
       DHARMADHDIKARI
       SREE YOGI NAREYANA MUTT
       (FORMERLY KNOWN AS
       SRI YOGINAREYANA ASHRAMA)
       SRI KSHETHRA KAIWARA
       CHINTAMANI TALUK
       CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 563 128.

2.     SRI RAJAPPA
       S/O MUNIYAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
       R/AT ALAMBGIRI VILLAGE
       KASABA HOBLI, CHINTHAMANI
       TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR
       DISTRICT - 563 125.

3.     SRI M.A. NARAYANASWAMY
       S/O NARAYANAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
       R/AT MAILAPURA
       KAIWARA HOBLI
       CHINTAMANI TALUK
       CHIKKABALLAPUR
       DISTRICT - 563 128.
                           2


4.    SRI RAVINDRA NAIDU
      S/O CHENNAIAH
      AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
      R/A KAIWARA, CHINTAMANI TALUK
      CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT.

5.    SRI SRINIVAS REDDY
      S/O CHINNAPPAYYA
      AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
      R/AT ALAMBAGIRI VILLAGE
      KASABA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK
      CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 563 125.

6.    SRI C. VENKATESH
      S/O CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA
      AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
      R/AT ALAMBAGIRI CHINTAMANI TALUK
      CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 563 125.

7.    SRI A.N. MANJUNATH
      S/O NANJAPPA
      AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
      R/O ALAMBAGIRI VILLAGE
      KASABA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK
      CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 563 125.

8.    SRI NARAYANA SWAMY
      S/O LATE ANJAPPA
      AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
      R/O MUNAGANAHALLI VILLAGE
      KASABA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK
      CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 563 125.

9.    SRI B N NAGARAJ
      S/O NARAYANAPPA
      AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
      R/AT BALAJIGARA BEEDHI
      KAIWARA, CHINTAMANI TALUK
      CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 563 128.

10.   SRI KRISHNAPPA
      S/O DODDAYYA
      AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
      R/A KAIWARACHINTAMANI TALUK
      CHIKKABALLAPUR
      DISTRICT 563 128.                    ...APPELLANTS
                             3

AND:

1.     THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
       CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT
       CHIKKABALLAPUR - 562 101.

2.     SRI V. RAMACHAR
       S/O VASUDEVACHAR
       AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
       RESIDING AT ALAMBAGIRI
       VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI
       CHINTAMANI TALUK
       CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 563 125.

3.     SRI SUDARSHANACHAR
       S/O VASUDEVACHAR
       AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
       R/A KONDARAMASWAMY TEMPLE
       EJIPURA, BANGALORE - 560 047.

4.     SRI. SRINIVASACHAR
       S/O VENKATANARASIMHACHAR
       AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
       RESIDING AT VENKATARAMANASWAMY
       AND ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE
       ANKATATTI VILLAGE, KOLAR TALUK
       AND DISTRICT - 563 102.

5.     THE COMMISIONER FOR
       HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE
       ENDOWMENTS, MINOT ANJANEYA
       BHAVAN, A.V. ROAD, CHAMARAJPET
       BANGALORE - 560 018.           ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI M.R. RAJAGOPAL, SR. COUNSEL FOR
    SRI H.N. BASAVARAJU, ADV., FOR C/R-2
    & ALSO FOR R-3 & R-4;
    SRI S.. MAHENDRA, A.G.A, FOR R-1 & R-5)

     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.08.2021 PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
IN W.P. NO. 20932/2010 TO 20945/2010 (GM-R/C) AND
REMIT BACK THE ABOVE MATTER TO THE HON'BLE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION OF THE
GRIEVANCES OF THE APPELLANTS HEREIN ON MERITS.
                               4


    THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
VISHWAJITH SHETTY J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                      JUDGMENT

This intra court appeal is filed challenging the order

dated 17.08.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of

this Court in W.P.No.20932/2010.

2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the

appellants, learned Senior Counsel for respondent nos.2

to 4, learned Additional Government Advocate and also

perused the material available on record.

3. Facts leading to the filing of this appeal stated in

brief are, appellant no.1 is the Member of the Managing

Committee of Sri Venkataramanaswamy Temple and

Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Alambagiri, Kolar District, and

the other appellants are the devotees of the said temple.

On the allegation that respondent nos.2 to 4 who were

working as Archaks in the aforesaid temple were not

regular to the temple and they were not performing their

duties regularly and they had locked the temple

according to their whims and fancies on several occasions

which had resulted in denial of entry to the devotees for

darshan of deity, the appellants had filed a complaint

before the Deputy Commissioner, Chickballapur. Based

on such complaint, an enquiry was held as against

respondent nos.2 to 4 and having found them guilty, the

Deputy Commissioner had imposed penalty of Rs.1,000/-

on respondent nos.2 to 4. The said order passed by the

Deputy Commissioner was challenged by the appellants

as well as by respondent nos.2 to 4 before the

Commissioner for Religious and Charitable Endowments,

Bengaluru, who had confirmed the said order and being

aggrieved by the same, the appellants had preferred

W.P.No.20932/2010 before this Court which was

dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that

the appellants have no locus standi to maintain the writ

petition. It is under these circumstances, the appellants

have preferred this intra court appeal.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

appellants submits that there is a finding recorded by the

Appellate Authority with regard to the locus standi of the

appellants which has not at all been considered by the

learned Single Judge. He submits that appellant no.1 is

the Member of the Managing Committee of the temple

and even on this date, and therefore, the learned Single

Judge was not justified in dismissing the writ petition on

the ground of locus standi of the appellants. He also

submits that the learned Single Judge having found that

the charges levelled against respondent nos.2 to 4 were

serious in nature, was not justified in dismissing the writ

petition and this Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, can exercise the power of judicial

review if the punishment imposed is disproportionate to

the charges levelled. Learned Senior Counsel for the

appellants submits that the Tahsildar has now taken

steps to comply with the orders impugned in the writ

petition which would virtually amount to reinstatement of

respondent nos.2 to 4 and in that regard, he has filed an

affidavit today. He submits that the Tahsildar who was

due to retire has taken steps to implement the orders

impugned in the writ petition.

5. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for

the contesting private respondent nos.2 to 4 submits that

the scope of interference as against the order of

punishment is very limited. He submits that the learned

Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition

as not maintainable as the appellants are third parties to

the lis and they have no locus to challenge the order of

punishment imposed by the competent authority on

respondent nos.2 to 4. In support of his contentions, he

has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS VS

MANAGOBINDA SAMANTARAY1 and in the case of PRAVIN

KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS2.

6. Learned AGA has also argued in support of the

impugned order and submits that the learned Single

Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition as not

maintainable.

7. It is not in dispute that the orders at Annexures-

A & B which was impugned in the writ petition were

passed in the proceedings that were initiated by the

appellants herein. In the said proceedings, respondent

nos.2 to 4 were found guilty and a meagre punishment

2022 SCC OnLine SC 284

(2020)9 SCC 471

was imposed on them. Being not satisfied with the

quantum of punishment imposed on respondent nos.2 to

4, which according to the appellants, was

disproportionate as against the charges levelled against

them, the appellants had preferred the writ petition

before this Court which was dismissed by the learned

Single Judge on the ground that the appellants have no

locus standi to challenge the orders at Annexures-A & B.

8. The question of locus standi of the appellants

was considered by respondent no.5 - Appellate Authority

and it was held that since the appellants are the

conveners and devotees of the temple and they are

interested in the development, maintenance, pooja,

Kaikarya of the temple, they have a right to question the

order. The learned Single Judge without appreciating that

the original order at Annexure-A was passed on the basis

of the complaint filed by the appellants herein, has

dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the

appellants have no locus standi to maintain the writ

petition and further observed that if they are aggrieved

by the orders passed by the authorities regarding the

quantum of punishment, they were required to approach

the Karnataka Lokayuktha and accordin/gly liberty was

also reserved.

9. It is trite law that the power of judicial review

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be

invoked in a case where punishment imposed is

disproportionate to the charges levelled. In the case on

hand, undisputedly, the charges levelled against

respondent nos.2 to 4 have been proved and the learned

Single Judge has observed that the charges against

respondent nos.2 to 4 are serious in nature. Therefore, in

our considered view, the learned Single Judge was

required to exercise the power of judicial review under

Article of 226 of the Constitution of India to the extent of

considering the question whether the punishment

imposed by the competent authority on respondent nos.2

to 4 is proportionate to the charges levelled against them

which stand proved. Since the orders at Annexures-A & B

were passed in a proceedings where undisputedly the

appellants were a party and having regard to the peculiar

set of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the

view that the learned Single Judge was not justified in

dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the

appellants have no locus standi to maintain the writ

petition.

11. The judgments on which the learned Senior

Counsel for respondent nos.2 to 4 has placed reliance,

have no application to the facts of the present case as

the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition

on the ground that the appellants have no locus to

maintain the writ petition. Under the circumstances, the

following order:

12. The writ appeal is allowed. The order passed by

the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed

by the appellants on the ground that the appellants have

no locus stand to maintain the writ petition is quashed,

and the matter is remitted to the learned Single Judge to

consider the writ petition on its merits and dispose of the

same in accordance with law.

13. In so far as the submission of the learned

Senior Counsel for the appellants that the Tahsildar has

taken steps to implement the orders at Annexures-A & B,

which would virtually amount to reinstatement of

respondent nos.2 to 4 is concerned, it is needless to

observe that in view of the orders passed by this Court

remitting the writ petition to the learned Single Judge to

dispose of the same in accordance with law, any such

orders passed by the Tahsildar shall be kept in abeyance

till the disposal of the writ petition.

SD/-

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

SD/-

JUDGE

KK