Karnataka High Court
Sri Nagesh Thantri vs State Of Karnataka on 17 August, 2023
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:29089
WP No. 6157 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.6157 OF 2023 (GM-R/C)
BETWEEN:
SRI. NAGESH THANTRI,
S/O KESHAVA THANTRI,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
SRI SHANMUKA NILAYA
KEMMIJE, DARBE POST,
PUTTUR TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA,
KARNATAKA - 574 202.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANATH KUMAR A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
Digitally ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT,
signed by GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
SHARADA
VANI B VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
Location: BENGALURU - 560 001.
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA 2. THE COMMISSIONER,
HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS,
AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT,
CHAMARAJAPET, BENGALURU - 560 018.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS
AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT,
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE,
DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALORE - 575 001.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:29089
WP No. 6157 of 2023
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND
CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT,
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE,
DAKSHINA KANNADA,
MANGALORE - 575 001.
5. THE MANAGING COMMITTEE,
SIR KEYYURU DHURGA PARAMESHWARI TEMPLE,
MADAVU, PUTTUR TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 210.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKAR, AGA FOR R1 - R4;
SRI. A. KESHAVA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECTING THE R-4 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 13.03.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A. GRANT AN INTERIM
ORDER TO DIRECTING THE FOURTH RESPONDENT TO
OVERSEE THE ANNUAL VINIYOGA AND ANNUAL FESTIVAL
WHICH NEEDS TO BE CONDUCTED FROM 23.03.2023 TILL
27.03.2023 AT R-5TH MANAGED TEMPLE AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The short grievance of the petitioner is against non-
consideration of his representation dated 13.03.2023
wherein he has made following prayer:
"»A¢£À ¸ÀA¥ÀæzÁAiÀÄzÀAvÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ 23.03.2023 gÀAzÀÄ
¸ÀAeɬÄAzÀ ±ÀÄ¢Þ PÁAiÀÄðPÀæªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ, 24.03.2023 gÀAzÀÄ £ÀqÉAiÀÄĪÀ
±ÀvÀZÀArPÁ AiÀiÁUÀ, 108 vÉAV£ÀPÁ¬Ä UÀt¥Àw ºÉÆêÀÄ 26.03.2023
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 27.03.2023 gÀAzÀÄ ²æà zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£ÀzÀ°è ªÁ¶ðPÀ eÁvÁæ
ªÀĺÉÆÃvÀìªÀªÀÅ £ÀqÉAiÀĨÉÃQzÀÄÝ, £ÀªÀÄä PÉ«ÄäAeÉ vÀAwæ PÀÄlÄA§PÉÌ
C£ÀĪÀA² vÀAwæUÀ¼ÁV ¸ÉÃªÉ ¸À°è¸À®Ä ºÁUÀÄ ªÀÄÄA§gÀĪÀ J¯Áè
NC: 2023:KHC:29089
WP No. 6157 of 2023
¥ÀƪÀð²µÀÖ ¸ÀA¥ÀæzÁAiÀÄzÀAvÉ £ÀqÉAiÀĨÉÃPÁzÀ ¥ÀÆeÁ PÁAiÀÄðUÀ½UÉ
vÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä PÉ«ÄäAeÉ vÀAwæ PÀÄlÄA§PÉÌ vÀAwæUÀ¼ÁV ¸ÉÃªÉ ¸À°è¸À®Ä
C£ÀĪÀÅ ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀĪÀAvÉ ¤ªÀÄä°è «£ÀAw¸ÀĪÀ."
2. After service of notice, the official respondents
are represented by the learned AGA and Respondent No.5
- Managing Committee of the temple is represented by
Senior Panel Counsel. Both vehemently oppose the
petition contending that in the absence of prima facie
demonstration of right to hereditary Thantriship or
otherwise, representation of the kind cannot be
mandamus to be considered.
3. Learned panel counsel appearing for the
Managing Committee opposes the petition contending that
there is already a judgment handed in earlier case in
W.P.No.23164/2022 between Sri. Nagesh Thantri v/s State
of Karnataka & Others disposed off on 07.03.2023
(Annexure-E) and in view of certain observations made by
a Co-ordinate Bench of this court, the request of petitioner
cannot be acceded. So contending, both the learned AGA
and the panel counsel seek dismissal of writ petition.
NC: 2023:KHC:29089
WP No. 6157 of 2023
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and having perused the petition papers, this court is
inclined to direct the Respondent No.4 - Assistant
Commissioner to consider the subject representation in
accordance with law inasmuch as it is a claim of an
ordinary citizen. This Court in a catena of decisions as held
that Article 350 of the Constitution of India mandates
consideration of grievance of the citizens when made to
statutory authorities. It is not in dispute that the
Respondent No.4 happens to be one of the statutory
authorities under the Karnataka Hindu Religious
Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997. That
being the position, he could not have squatted on the
subject representation without turning its pages, ad
infinitum.
5. The learned panel counsel appearing for the
Managing Committee submits that there is absolutely no
material placed on record to demonstrate that the
petitioner was a Thantri of the temple and much less
hereditary Thantri and therefore, that issue need not be
NC: 2023:KHC:29089
WP No. 6157 of 2023
considered by the Assistant Commissioner. This is bit
difficult to countenance inasmuch as there is some
observation at paragraphs 9 & 10 of the judgment handed
by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court which reads as
under:
"In the light of the said submission, the
allegations made against the petitioner and the
resolution dated 18.09.2022 would stand
withdrawn and all the allegations made therein
are also effaced. The other prayer that is sought
is quashment of Annexure-A, which is a
resolution dated 15.09.2022 passed by the
members by the Temple Renovation Committee.
Admittedly, in the scheme of the Act, the Temple
Renovation Committee has no jurisdiction to
pass any such resolution. Therefore, the said
resolution being without jurisdiction needs to be
obliterated.
In the light of the obliteration, nothing
blame worthy remains against the petitioner,
except the contents of the statement of
objections."
The above observation comes to the aid of petitioner
as to his claim of Thantriship; whether hereditary or not
pales into insignificance since his removal from Thantriship
has been set at naught by the judgment in question.
In the above circumstances, this Petition is allowed;
a writ of mandamus issues to the Respondent No.4 -
NC: 2023:KHC:29089
WP No. 6157 of 2023
Assistant Commissioner to take a call on the subject
representation of the petitioner in accordance with law and
inform result of such consideration to the petitioner within
a period of four weeks and report of compliance to the
Registrar General of this Court, failing which the said
officer is likely to be hauled for contempt of Court.
All contentions are kept open.
It is open to the answering Respondent no.4 to solicit
any information/documents from the side of the Petitioner as
are required for due consideration of subject Representation;
however, in the guise of such solicitation, no delay shall be
brooked.
It is open to the Respondent Management committee
to participate in the proceedings
Now, no costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ABK
