Sri. Edurkala Ishwara Bhat vs Sri. Raghaveshwara Bharathi ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 12221 Kant

                           1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

                       PRESENT

            THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
                ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

                         AND

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY

           W.P. NO.25124 OF 2016 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:


1.    SRI. EDURKALA ISHWARA BHAT
      AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
      S/O Y. SHAM BHAT
      NO.1791, DHYANA, 1ST MAIN ROAD
      PIPELINE ROAD, T. DASARAHALLI
      BENGALURU - 560057.

2.    SRI. JAIKRISHNA A.K.
      AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
      S/O A. KESHAVA BHAT
      NO.61, 5TH MAIN ROAD
      POSTAL COLONY, SANJAYANAGAR
      BENGALURU - 560094.

3.    SMT. MAYURI GAJANANA UPADHAYAYA
      AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
      W/O GAJANANA SUBRAMANYA UPADHYAYA
      NO.19, 12TH CROSS
      VIJAYANAGAR PIPELINE
      NEAR TEJA HOME, VIJAYANAGAR
      BENGALURU- 560023.
                             2



4.     SRI. KABSE ASHOKMURTHY
       AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
       S/O GANAGA NAIK
       SOORANAGADDE, J P NAGARA
       AT POST SAGAR, SHIMOGA DISTRICT.

5.     SRI. SHANKAR BHAT G
       AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
       S/O NARAYANA BHAT .K
       GUNDIGADDE HOUSE, BELLARE POST
       SULLIA TALUK
       DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574212.

6.     SRI. K.T. MAHABALAGIRI HEGDE
       AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
       S/O SRI. THIMMAPPA HEGDE
       R/AT KHANDIKA VILLAGE & POST
       SAGARA TALUK
       SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577401.

                                          ... PETITIONERS

(BY MR. S.S. NAGANAND, SR. COUNSEL A/W
    MR. S.G. PRASHANTH MURTHY, ADV., FOR
    MRS. SUMANA NAGANAND, ADV.,)

AND:

1.     SRI. RAGHAVESHWARA BHARATHI SWAMIJI
       EARLIER KNOWN AS SRI HARISH SHARMA
       AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
       S/O SRI. SRINIVASA BHAT
       RESIDING AT RAMASHRAMA
       NO.2A, J P ROAD
       GIRINAGARA I STAGE
       BENGALURU - 560085.

2.     SRI. RAMACHANDRAPURA MATH
       EARLIER KNOWN AS RAGHOTTAMA MATH
       RAMASHRAMA, NO.2A
       J P ROAD, GIRINAGARA I STAGE
                           3



     BENGALURU - 560085
     REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO.

3.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
     (MUZARAI DEPARTMENT)
     VIKASA SOUDHA
     DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD
     BENGALURU - 560001.

4.   THE UNION OF INDIA
     DEPT OF HOME AFFAIRS
     NORTH BLOCK, RAJPATH
     NEWDELHI - 110001
     REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

5.   THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF
     INCOME TAX, KARNATAKA
     C.R. BUILDINGS, QUEENS ROAD
     BENGALURU - 560001.

                                     ... RESPONDENTS

(BY MR. UDAYA HOLLA, SR. COUNSEL FOR
    MR. MANMOHAN P.N. ADV., FOR R1 & R2
    MR. R. SUBRAMANYA, AAG A/W
    MR. S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R3
    MR. H. SHANTHIBHUSHAN, ASG FOR R4
    MR. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV., FOR R5)
                           ---

     THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT TO THE
R-3 TO EXERCISE ITS EXECUTIVE POWER TO REGULATE
THE R-2 AND ALL OTHER MATHS IN THE STATE PENDING
THE PASSING ENACTMENT OF A REGULOTARY STATUE BY
THE STATE LEGISLATURE.     ALTERNATIVE TO FRAME A
SCHEME TO REGULATE MATHS IN GENERAL AND IN THE
PRESENT CONTEXT TO REGULATE THE R-2 HAVING
REGARD TO THE MISUSE AND ABUSE OF POWERS BY THE
                                4



R-1. DIRECT REMOVING THE R-1 FROM THE OFFICE OF
MATHADIPATHI/MAHANT OR HEAD OF THE PEETHA OF THE
R-2 MATH/INSTITUTION AND DIRECT PROSECUTION FOR
MISUSE AND ABUSE OF THE OFFICE & ETC.

     THIS W.P. HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS     ON     22.09.2022, COMING    ON    FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, ACTING CHIEF
JUSTICE., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                            ORDER

The petitioners claim to be devotees of

Sri.Ramachandrapura Math (hereinafter referred to as

'the Math' for short). The petitioners have filed this

petition pro bono publico seeking the following reliefs:

"a. An appropriate writ/direction to the 3rd respondent to exercise its executive power to regulate the 2nd respondent and all other Maths in the state pending the passing/ enactment of a regulatory statute by the State Legislature. Alternatively, to frame a scheme to regulate Maths in general and in the present context to regulate the 2nd Respondent having regard to the misuse and

abuse of powers by the 1st respondent.

b. An appropriate writ/direction removing the 1st respondent from the office of Mathadipathi/Mahant or head of the Peetha of the 2nd Respondent Math/Institution and direct prosecution for misuse and abuse of the office;

c. To appoint a committee comprising of eminent devotees, representatives /officials of the government, retired Judge/s of the Hon'ble Supreme Court or this Court who would suggest the successor/Peethadipathi to the 2nd Respondent and to manage/ dminister the affairs of the 2nd Respondent till the successor takes charge;

d. To direct the 6th respondent to order investigation into affairs of the 1st and 2nd Respondents regarding evasion of tax and other offences under the Tax legislations and

initiate action against concerned persons;

e. To monitor all investigations regarding complaints/offences lodged and reported till now and that may be lodged in future against the 1st Respondent and in relation to the affairs of the 2nd Respondent and anything incidental or connected thereto;

f. Pass such other order/s as may be necessary in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and equity."

2. Facts giving rise to filing of these petitions

in nutshell are that the Math was established in 8th

Century and was known as Raghottama Math and is

involved in propagation of tenets of Sanathan Dharma

and Indian Philosophy and is an institution

propagating social, religious philosophical and

charitable issues. The Math is headed by a

Mathadhipathi viz., respondent No.2 who is the head

of spiritual fraternity and has to perform religious of a

religious teacher. It is his duty to practice and

propagate the religious tenets. The affairs of Math /

Religious institutions were being regulated by Mysore

Religious and Charitable Institutions Act, 1927. The

said Act was repealed by Karnataka Hindu Religious

Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997

(hereinafter referred to as 'the 1997 Act' for short). The

1997 Act was enacted in view of long standing public

demand to bring about a uniform law to provide for

regulation of charitable endowments and Hindu

religious institutions in the State. Section 1(4) of the

1997 Act which is relevant for the purpose of the

controversy involved in this petition is extracted below

for the facility of reference:

"1(4) It shall apply to, all religious institutions or charitable endowments notified under Section 23. Section 53 and

Chapter VII shall apply to all religious institutions endowments other than those notified under Section 23.

Provided that it shall not apply to a math or temple attached to or managed by math.

Explanation: For the purpose of this Act a mutt means a religious institution presided over by a person whose principal duty is to engage himself in the teaching and propagation of religion, teachings and philosophy of the denomination, sect or sampradaya to which the mutt belongs and in imparting religious instruction and training and rendering spiritual service or who exercises or claims to exercise spiritual headship over a body of disciples and includes any place or places of religious worship, instruction or training which are pertinent to the institution."

3. Thus, the 1997 Act does not apply to a

Math or Temple attached to or managed by Math. The

respondent No.1 took over as Matadhipathi of the

Math from 18.04.1999. A division bench of this court

vide judgment in SRI.SAHASRA LINGESHWARA

TEMPLE v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND

ANOTHER1, struck down the Act as unconstitutional.

Against the said judgment of Division Bench of this

court, a Special Leave Petition has been filed before

Hon'ble Supreme Court in which judgment rendered

by a division bench of this court has been stayed. The

Act therefore, has revived.

4. The Act was amended by Act No.27 of 2011

with effect from 04.05.2011. Section 2(19-A) was

inserted by which, expression "Math" was defined.

Section 2(19-A) reads as under:

"(19-A) "Math" means a religious institution presided over by a person whose principal duty is to engage himself, in teaching and

(2007) 1 KLJ 1

propagation of religion, teachings and philosophy of the denomination, sect or sampradaya to which the Math belongs and in imparting religious instruction and training and rendering spiritual service who exercises or claims to exercise spiritual headship over a body of disciples and includes any place or places of religious worship, instruction or training which are pertinent to the institution including religious institutions attached either religiously or administratively to the Maths."

5. On 26.08.2014, one Smt. Premalatha filed a

complaint against respondent No.1, in pursuance of

which First Information Report on 28.08.2014 was

lodged against respondent No.1 vide Crime

No.164/2014. Thereafter, her brother-in-law namely,

Shyam Prasad Shastry committed suicide on

31.08.2014. The respondent No.1 filed a writ petition

namely, W.P.No.43825/2014 seeking quashment of

the complaint as well as First Information Report

registered in Crime No.164/2014. The said writ

petition was dismissed by an order dated 09.10.2014.

6. One T.T.Hegde, on or about 18.03.2016,

claiming to be a devotee of the Math filed a petition

under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

(hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for short).

Thereafter, one Prashanth Kumar M.B and Lokesh M.

also filed a petition under Section 92 of the Code for

grant of leave to file a suit seeking removal of

respondent No.1 from the seat of Peetadhipathi /

Mahant of the Math and to appoint a new

Peetadhipathi / Mahant. The aforesaid persons also

sought the relief of rendition of accounts of the Math

as well as a decree for permanent injunction

restraining respondent No.1 from representing as

Peetadhipathi / Mahant of the Math.

7. By an order dated 31.03.2016, the

respondent No.1 was discharged in respect of an

offence lodged against him in pursuance of the

complaint made by Smt. Premalatha.

8. The petition under Section 92 of the Code

filed by Prashanth Kumar M.B and Lokesh M. was

rejected by an order dated 17.10.2017. The petition

under Section 92 of the Code filed by Mr.T.T.Hegde

was dismissed for non-prosecution on 30.11.2017.

9. The petitioners thereafter claiming to be the

devotees of the Math have filed this petition on

25.04.2016, inter alia on the ground that respondent

No.1 has committed malpractices and has rendered

himself ineligible to continue as Peetadhipathi /

Mahant. A Division Bench of this Court, while issuing

notice, passed the following order on 28.04.2016:

"Liberty is granted to the writ petitioner(s) to make a representation

to the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, ventilating their grievances. The Chief Secretary is requested to consider and dispose of such representation after giving opportunity of hearing to all the concerned in the Mather and uninfluenced by the pendency of these writ petitions.

Post these writ petitions one week after the reopening of the court after annual vacation 2016."

10. Thereafter, petitioner No.1 and petitioner

No.2 submitted a representation on 30.04.2016 to the

Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, in which

inter alia a prayer was made to restrain respondent

No.1 from discharging duties as Peetadhipathi of the

Math. The aforesaid petitioners also requested the

Chief Secretary to formulate a scheme for

superintendence of functioning of all Maths in the

State of Karnataka including the procedure for

appointment, suspension and removal of the pontiffs

and his successors in exercise of the powers under

Article 162 of the Constitution. The aforesaid

petitioners also sought a special audit and

investigation into the affairs of the Math. The Chief

Secretary, by an order dated 23.05.2017, directed to

conduct an enquiry into the allegations made by

petitioner Nos.1 and 2.

11. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 challenged the

order in W.P.No.28337/2017 in a writ petition. The

learned Single Judge, by an order dated 25.07.2017,

stayed the operation of the order dated 23.05.2017

passed by the Chief Secretary. The aforesaid interim

order was challenged in W.A.No.4699/2017 before a

Division Bench of this Court. The respondent Nos.1

and 2 filed an interlocutory application namely,

I.A.No.2/2016 seeking, recall of the order dated

28.04.2016.

12. A Division Bench of this Court, by an order

dated 27.06.2019, without deciding the issue of

maintainability of the appeal, dismissed

I.A.No.2/2016 seeking recall of the order dated

28.04.2016 inter alia on the ground that no ground is

made out to allow the same. Thereafter, by another

order dated 25.11.2019, it was inter alia held that the

order passed by the Chief Secretary dated 23.05.2017

is challenged in W.P.No.28337/2017. Therefore, a

Division Bench of this Court directed to list

W.P.No.28337/2017 along with this writ petition.

13. Learned Single Judge by an order dated

29.12.2021 passed in Criminal Revision Petition

No.638/2016 and Criminal Revision Petition

No.550/2016 upheld the order of discharge passed by

the Trial Court dated 31.03.2016. The orders dated

27.06.2019 and 25.11.2019 passed by Division Bench

of this Court were assailed by the respondent Nos.1

and 2 before Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal

Nos.5531-5538/2022. The aforesaid Special Leave

Petition was disposed of by Hon'ble Supreme Court by

an order dated 22.08.2022. The relevant extract of

the order reads as under:

"Since the matters (*sic) concerning maintainability of the writ petition would go to the root of the Mather and consequential directions issued by the Chief Secretary would depend squarely on such issue of maintainability, we direct as under:

"(a) The order dated 27.06.2019 I set aside, and I.A.

No.2 of 2016 is restored to the file of the High Court to be disposed of afresh on merits.

(b) Till the disposal of I.A.No.2 of 2016, the effect and operation of

the order dated 28.04.2016 shall remain stayed.

(c) Consequently, the consideration bestowed by the Chief Secretary and the resultant orders by him shall also not be given any effect till the Mather regarding maintainability of the writ petition is decided by the High Court.

(d) All other rights and contentions of the parties are left open.

(e) In order to facilitate early disposal of the Mathers, the parties shall appear before the High Court on 05.09.2022.

9. The instant Civil Appeals are thus allowed without any order as to costs.

10. Any observation made by this Court shall not be taken to be

reflection on merits of the rival contentions and submissions."

14. In the aforesaid factual background, this

writ petition arises for consideration. We have heard

the submissions of learned Senior Counsels for the

parties and learned Additional Advocate General on

the maintainability of the appeal and with consent of

learned Senior Counsels and as well as learned

counsel for the parties on merits as well.

15. The learned Senior Counsel for the

petitioners, at the outset, clarified that the petitioners

are not seeking any mandamus to the Legislature to

enact a law. It is further submitted that there is a

vacuum with regard to an effective Legislation in

relation to curbing and taking remedial action in

respect of Mathers pertaining to Maths and

Mathadipathis. It is submitted that inaction on the

part of the Government cannot be sustained. It is

contended that executive powers under Article 162 of

the Constitution of India can be exercised to frame a

scheme in respect of Maths. It is also urged that

decision on a petition under Section 92 of the Code

does not affect the jurisdiction of this court under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also

urged that there is a need to evolve a mechanism to

deal with the issue of administration of Maths in the

State of Karnataka. Learned Senior counsel has also

taken us through the averments made in the writ

petition as well as several documents and has relied

on decisions in the cases of SRI SAHASRA

LINGESHWARA TEMPLE, UPPINANGADY, PUTTUR

TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA AND OTHERS v.

STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER2, RAI SAHIB

RAM JAWAYA KAPUR AND OTHERS v. STATE OF

PUNJAB3, VIDYA MANOHARA THEERTHA

(2007) 1 Kant LJ 1

AIR 1955 SC 549

SWAMIGALU, PEETHADIPATHY, VYASARAJA MUTT

(SOSALE), T.NARASIPURA, MYSORE DISTRICT v.

STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS4, MA.

GOUTHAMAN AND ORS. v. THE STATE OF TAMIL

NADU & ORS.5, ADI SAIVA SIVACHARIYARGAL

NALA SANGAM AND OTHERS v. GOVERNMENT OF

TAMIL NADU AND ANOTHER6 and MEGHWAL

SAMAJ SHIKSHA SAMITI v. LAKH SINGH AND

OTHERS7.

16. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel

for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that Section

1(4) of the Act specifically excludes Maths from the

purview of the Act and therefore, the petitioners

cannot seek a direction to the State of Karnataka to

exercise its executive power to regulate the Maths in

question. It is also urged that the fact of filing of the

(2013) 2 Kant LJ 466

MANU/TN/1546/2012

(2016) 2 SCC 725

(2011) 11 SCC 800

petition under Section 92 of the CPC has been

suppressed by the petitioners. It is also pointed out

that another petition filed under Section 92 of the

CPC by two devotees has been dismissed on

17.10.2017. It is also pointed out that in respect of

an offence under Section 376, respondent No.1 has

already been discharged whereas, in respect of

another complaint pertaining to suicide, a Bench of

this Court granted stay. It is also urged that there is

no element of public interest involved in the petition

and the petition has been filed out of vengeance

against respondent Nos.1 and 2.

17. In support of aforesaid submissions,

reliance has been placed on the decisions in the cases

of B.N.NAGARAJAN AND OTHERS v. STATE OF

MYSORE AND OTHERS8, ACCOUNTANT GENERAL,

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. S.K.DUBEY AND

AIR 1966 SC 1942

ANOTHER9, HOPE TEXTILES LTD AND ANOTHER v.

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS10 and VIVEK

KRISHNA vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS11.

18. Learned Additional Advocate General

submitted that no representation has been submitted

to the State Government and the State Legislature has

consciously omitted the Maths from the purview of the

Act. It is also urged that in order to seek a writ of

mandamus, a legal right in corresponding legal duty

has to be demonstrated. The petitioners have failed to

point out any such legal right. It is also urged that

court cannot compel an authority to act contrary to

the statutory provisions and cannot direct the State to

enact a law. The writ petition is liable to be

dismissed. In support of aforesaid submissions,

reliance has been placed on decisions in

B.N.NAGARAJAN AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF

(2012) 4 SCC 578

1995 SUPP (3) SCC 199

MYSORE AND OTHERS12, ACCOUNTANT GENERAL,

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. S.K.DUBEY AND

ANOTHER13, HOPE TEXTILES LTD. AND ANOTHER

VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 14 and VIVEK

KRISHNA VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

INDIA15.

19. We have considered the submissions made

by learned counsel for the parties and have perused

the records. The 1997 Act was struck down by a

division bench of this Court in W.A. No.3440/2005.

In Civil Appeal No.5924/2008, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India has stayed the operation of the

judgment of the Division Bench of this Court and has

permitted to enforce the provisions of the Act, except

provision of Section 25 of 1997. The State

Government thereafter constituted a High Level

2022 SCC ONLINE SC 1040

AIR 1966 SC 1942

(2012) 4 SCC 578

(1995) SUPP (3) SCC 199

2022 SCC ONLINE SC 1040

Committee to examine the implementation of the

judgment and the issue in detail. The said High Level

Committee submitted its report and on consideration

of the report, the State Government amended the

1997 Act by an Act No.27 of 2011. The 1997 Act does

not apply to the provisions of the Maths. There is a

conscious omission on the part of the Legislature in

keeping the Maths out of the purview of the Act,

which is also evident from statement of objects and

reasons of Karnataka Act No.27 of 2011 namely the

Amendment Act. The relevant extract of the

statement of objects and reasons reads as under:

"The Government had constituted a high level committee to examine the implication of the judgment and the issue in detail.

          The     High     Level       Committee      had
          submitted       its        report.     Having

considered the report of the High Level Committee and the directions of

the Supreme Court, it is considered necessary to amend the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 for the following, namely:-

(1) The maths and temples attached to the maths are kept out of the purview of the Act, as the maths are headed and managed by mathadipathis."

Thus, the legislative intention to exclude the

Maths is manifest from the statement of objects and

reasons of the Amendment Act.

20. The hall mark of our Constitution is to

build a society to attain justice and erase inequities

flowing from religion, gender, caste and privileges. In

this background, Articles 25 to 30 are incorporated in

the Constitution. Article 25(1) of the Constitution

guarantees the freedom of conscience, the right to

freely profess, practice and propagate religion subject

to public order, morality and health. Article 26

confers the right to establish institution for religious

or charitable purpose and to maintain its own affairs

in the matter of religion, on every religious

denomination, subject to public order, morality and

health. Article 26 of the Constitution reads as under:

"26. Freedom to manage religious affairs subject to public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right:

(a) to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes;

(b) to manage its own affairs in matters of religion;

(c) to own and acquire movable and immovable property; and

(d) to administer such property in accordance with law."

The scope and ambit of Article 26 was

considered by a seven Judge Bench of Supreme Court

in THE COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS

ENDOWMENTS MADRAS v. SRI LAKSHMINDRA

THIRTHA SWAMIAR OF SRI SHIRUR MUTT16 and it

has been held that Article 26 contemplates not merely

a religious denomination but also a section thereof,

the Math or the spiritual fraternity represented by it

can legitimate the come within the purview of Article

26. Therefore, a Math is entitled to protection of

Article 26 of the Constitution of India.

21. It is trite law that power under Article 162

of the Constitution of India is co-terminus with

legislative power and in the absence of any statutory

provision, power under Article 162 of the Constitution

of India can be exercised. It is equally well settled

legal proposition that if there is an alternative remedy,

AIR 1954 SC 282

jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India shall not ordinarily be exercised

specially in a case where right is created by the

statute which itself provides for a remedy. In such a

case, an aggrieved person should resort to the remedy

provided to him under the statute. [See: RADHA

KRISHNA INDUSTRIES VS. STATE OF HP17].

22. The scope of a public interest litigation in

relation to religious institutions in respect of which a

particular legislation provides for a mechanism for

adjudication of the disputes has been dealt with by

Hon'ble Supreme Court in JAIPUR SHAHAR HINDU

VIKAS SAMITHI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN &

OTHERS18. Para 47 and relevant extract of para 48 of

the aforesaid judgment, which is relevant for the

purpose of controversy involved in this appeal, reads

as under:

(2021) 6 SCC 771

(2014) 5 SCC 530

"47. The scope of Public Interest Litigation is very limited, particularly, in the matter of religious institutions.

It is always better not to entertain this type of Public Interest Litigations simply on the basis of affidavits of the parties. The public trusts and religious institutions are governed by particular legislation which provide for a proper mechanism for adjudication of disputes relating to the properties of the trust and their management thereof. It is not proper for the Court to entertain such litigation and pass orders. It is also needless to mention that the forums cannot be misused by the rival groups in the guise of public interest litigation.

48. We feel that it is apt to quote the views expressed by this Court in Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee (supra) wherein this Court observed :

"It is possible to contend that the Hindus in general and the devotees visiting the temple in particular are interested in proper management of the temple at the hands of the statutory functionaries. That may be so but the Act is a self- contained Code. Duties and functions are prescribed in the Act and the rules framed thereunder. Forums have been created thereunder for ventilation of the grievances of the affected persons. Ordinarily, therefore, such forums should be moved at the first instance. The State should be asked to look into the grievances of the aggrieved devotees, both as parens patriae as also in discharge of its statutory duties.

...     ...    ...    The         Court     should    be
circumspect       in        entertaining       such

public interest litigation for another reason. There may be dispute amongst the devotees as to what

practices should be followed by the temple authorities. There may be dispute as regard the rites and rituals to be performed in the temple or omission thereof. Any decision in favour of one sector of the people may heart the sentiments of the other. The Courts normally, thus, at the first instance would not enter into such disputed arena, particularly, when by reason thereof the fundamental right of a group of devotees under Articles 25 and 26 may be infringed. Like any other wing of the State, the Courts also while passing an order should ensure that the fundamental rights of a group of citizens under Articles 25 and 26 are not infringed. Such care and caution on the part of the High Court would be a welcome step."

23. Now, we proceed to examine whether in the

obtaining factual matrix, a case has been made out in

exercise of extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue

a writ of mandamus to direct the State Government to

frame a scheme to regulate the affairs of respondent

No.2 Math.

24. The respondent No.1 has been appointed as

mathadipathi of respondent No.2 trust on 18.04.1999.

Thereafter, since the year 2014, there has been

successive attempts to remove respondent No.1 from

the office of mathadipathi / mahant. On 26.08.2014,

a complaint was lodged by one Smt. Premalatha,

which resulted in lodging of first information report

against respondent No.1. By an order dated

31.03.2016, the respondent No.1 was discharged in

respect of aforesaid offence. The said order has been

affirmed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by an

order dated 29.12.2021 in Criminal Petition

No.638/2016 and Criminal Petition No.550/2016.

25. One T.T. Hegde on or about 18.03.2016

filed a petition under Section 92 of the Code of Civil

Procedure which was dismissed on 30.11.2017.

Another petition was filed by two of the devotees,

namely Prashanth Kumar L.B. and Lokesh .N under

Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was

dismissed by an order dated 17.10.2017. Similarly, in

respect of offence of suicide, proceeding has been

stayed by a bench of this Court and the matter is

subjudice.

26. In the peculiar fact situation of the case,

this Court is not inclined to exercise the extraordinary

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India and to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the

State Government to exercise its power under Article

162 of the Constitution of India, to frame a scheme for

administration of the Maths. The Legislature has

expressly excluded the Maths and Temples attached

to the Maths, as they are headed and managed by

mathadipathis. In any case, the petitioners have an

alternative efficacious remedy under Section 92 of the

Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, we are not

inclined to exercise the extraordinary discretionary

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, and therefore, writ petition is held to be not

maintainable.

27. In view of aforesaid conclusion recorded by

us, no orders are necessary to be passed on

I.A.No.2/2016, an application seeking recall of the

order dated 24.04.2003, by which the petitioner was

permitted to submit a representation to Chief

Secretary, Government of Karnataka.

In view of preceding analysis, we do not find any

merit in the writ petition. However, liberty is reserved

to the petitioners to take recourse to the remedy

provided under Section 92 of the Code.

In view of disposal of the main petition itself,

pending I.As do not survive for consideration, the

same stand disposed of. The interim order stands

vacated.

With the aforesaid liberty, the petition is

disposed of.

Sd/-

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

SS