Karnataka High Court

Sri K P Rupesh Kumar vs State Of Karnataka on 2 February, 2024

                             1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024

                         BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ

     WRIT PETITION NO.13108 OF 2019 (GM-R/F)

BETWEEN:

SRI. K.P. RUPESH KUMAR,
SON OF LATE PADMANABHA NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT NO.104/2, PRITCHARD ROAD,
ROBERTSONPET, KOLAR GOLD FIELDS,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563122
                                       ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA
       REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
       VIDHANA SOUDHA,
       AMBEDKAR VEEDI,
       BANGALORE-560001

2.     THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
       KOLAR DISTRICT,
       KOLAR-563101.

3.     THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
       KOLAR SUB-DIVISION
       KOLAR-563 101.

4.     THE TAHSILDHAR
       ROBERTSONPET HOBLI,
       KOLAR GOLD FIELDS,
       KOLAR-563 122.
                           2


5.   THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
     PRASANNA VENKATESHWARA SWAMY TEMPLE,
     KOLAR GOLD FIELDS,
     KOLAR DISTRICT-563 122

6.   SREE VENKATARAMANA SWAMY
     GOLDEN CHARIOT TRUST,
     RPTD., BY ITS PRESIDENT
     SRI. Y. SAMPANGI,
     S/O YALLAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
     OFFICE AT: 1ST CROSS ROAD,
     ROBERTSONPET,
     K.G.F.-563122.

7.   THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENDOWMENTS
     DEPARTMENT OF HINDU RELIGIOUS
     INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT,
     4TH FLOOR, MINTO SREE ANJANEYA BHAVAN,
     ALURU VENKATA RAO ROAD,
     CHAMARAJAPET,
     BANGALORE-560018

     AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT VIDE
     ORDER OF THE HONB'LE COURT
     DATED 11.07.2023.
                                  ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. MALIND DANGE, ADDITIONAL         GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 5;
SRI. J.C.KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.6)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE

DIRECTION FOR QUASHING ANNEXURE-N DATED 27.02.2019

PASSED     BY    THE     RESPONDENT      NO.2    VIDE

NO.DVS(1)CR:225/11-12.
                              3



       THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED

FOR    ORDER    ON   04.12.2023   AND   COMING   ON   FOR

PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE

THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-


                         ORDER

The petitioner claims to be the legal heir of the

family of Sri M. Bhaskaralu Naidu, who consecrated

Lord Sri Lakshmivenkateshwara Swamy and

Padmavathi Devi and built a temple on his land out of

his own earning. The petitioner claimed that Sri M.

Bhaskaralu Naidu was performing utsavas to Lord in

the temple in the months of Palguna Shudda Ashtami

for a period of 9 days which was later extended to 12

days as a karaga festival commenced on 9th day and

ended on the 12th day. He claimed that these utsavas

were conducted in accordance with the Navahika

Vaikhanasa Agama which is practiced in Vishnu

temple. He claimed that after the death of Sri M.

Bhasakarulu Naidu, his son-in-law - Sri B. Bhaskaralu

Naidu was performing the ceremonies and poojas in

accordance with the tradition followed by the founder.

Later, he could not manage the affairs of the temple

and entrusted it to the then Government of Mysore in

terms of a deed of gift dated 10.12.1936 whereunder

Sri B. Bhaskaralu Naidu reserved his right to be the

first Dharmadarshi till his death and after his death,

one person from his family and another from the

family of Sri B. Bhaskaralu Naidu to be appointed as

the Dharmadarshi to look after the administration and

management of the temple. The petitioner claims that

the family members of Sri B. Bhaskaralu Naidu were

chosen as the hereditary Utsavadhars to look after the

daily poojas and Ratotsava etc. He claims that as per

the existing traditions, the utsavas in the temple were

conducted for a period of 12 days every year

commencing from palguna shudha ashtami. He claims

that this tradition was continued even after the temple

was handed over to the Government of Mysore. After

the formation of the State of Karnataka, the traditions

and customs in the temple were followed by the

Department of Muzarai as per which the Brahmotsava

was conducted for 12 days. In this regard, he has

placed on record the hand bills of the Brahmotsava for

the years 1973, 1974, 1975 and 2010. He alleged

that at the instance of a Member of the Legislative

Assembly (M.L.A) and certain politically influential

persons, the Deputy Commissioner intended to the

change the traditions by permitting the M.L.A to

perform the utsavas beyond 12 days. This was

opposed by the paternal aunt of the petitioner as it

violated the traditions and customs followed in the

temple. The respondent No.7 - Commissioner of

Endowments after considering the objection, passed

an order on 19.02.2010 directing the Deputy

Commissioner, Kolar and others not to allow any

utsavas in violation of the traditions and customs

followed at the temple. The petitioner contends that

certain politicians influenced the Commissioner of

Endowments to extend the utsavas beyond 12 days by

3 days. The Commissioner of Endowments yielding to

such influence held a meeting on 24.02.2015 and

assured that appropriate decision would be taken

regarding extension of utsava period beyond 12 days

after consulting and obtaining the opinion of Rajya

Dharmika Parishat. Nonetheless, the Commissioner of

Endowments without consulting the Rajya Dharmika

Parishat, directed the respondent No.5 to extend the

number of utsava days from 12 to 13. This resulted in

rivalry amongst politicians to conduct the 13th day car

festival and they approached the Commissioner of

Endowments who extended the period of

Brahmaratotsava from 13 to 14 and 15 days in terms

of the order dated 27.02.2015. The petitioner being

aggrieved by such arbitrary act, filed W.P

No.9587/2015 before this Court. A coordinate Bench

of this Court in terms of the order dated 01.06.2018,

allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated

27.02.2015 and the Commissioner of Endowments

was directed to pass appropriate orders afresh

keeping in mind the provisions of the Karnataka Hindu

Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments At,

1997 (henceforth referred to as 'the Act of 1997') and

the observations made in the order. The petitioner

contends that pursuant to the order in the aforesaid

writ petition, the respondent No.2 convened a meeting

on 19.02.2019 whereat the petitioner sent a reply in

writing. Nonetheless, the respondent No.2 again

passed an order dated 27.02.2019 permitting the

Brahmaratotsava to go beyond 12 days by providing

an opportunity to an ex-M.L.A to perform utsava on

the 13th day taking advantage of certain observations

made in the order dated 01.06.2018 passed in W.P

No.9587/2015.

2. The petitioner contends that under Section

58 of the Act of 1997, every person performing

functions under the Act shall not interfere with, and

shall observe the customs, usages, ceremonies and

practices appropriate to the Notified Institution or

Declared Institution. He submitted that this Court in

the order dated 01.06.2018 passed in W.P.

No.9587/2015 had held that the words "shall not

interfere" and "shall observe" are mandatory and not

directory. He also relied upon the judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of N.Adithayan v.

The Travancore Devaswom Board and others

[2002 AIR SCW 4146] as well as the judgment of

the Privy Council in the case of Thiruvenkata

Ramanuja Pedda Jiyyangarlu Valu v. Prathivathi

Bhayankaram Venkatacharlu and others [A.I.R

(34) 1947 Privy Council 53]. Learned counsel

contended that when once the order dated

27.02.2015 passed by the Commissioner of

Endowments was quashed by this Court in W.P.

No.9587/2015, he was bound to pass a fresh order

restricting the Brahmaratotsava to 12 days. He

submitted that the respondent No.2 as well as the ex-

M.L.A have tried to take advantage of certain

observations made in the course of the order dated

01.06.2018 in W.P. No.9587/2015 that the experts

had opined that Brahmaratotsavam period cannot

exceed beyond 13 days. He submitted that it is a

practice in the temple that Brahmaratotsava is

performed for a period of 12 days only and the

respondent No.2 has no authority to extend it beyond

12 days. He therefore prays that the impugned order

passed by the respondent No.2 extending the

Brahmarratotsava to 13 days be quashed.

3. The official respondents filed the statement

of objections contending that the Commissioner of

Endowments had passed an order dated 27.02.2015

permitting Brahmaratotsava to be performed for three

days beyond the 12 days, which was challenged

before this Court in W.P No.9587/2015. They claimed

that this Court while disposing off the writ petition

held "that it is clearly stated by experts that

Brahmaratotsavam period cannot exceed beyond 13

days". Therefore, it is contended that the respondent

No.2 taking note of the said observation in the order

dated 01.06.2018 in W.P. No.9587/2015, passed the

order dated 27.02.2019 permitting the

Brahmaratotsava in the temple to be performed on a

13th day. Therefore, they contend that there is no

illegality in the impugned order passed by the Deputy

Commissioner. They further contend that this is not

the first time that Brahmaratotsava is conducted on

the 13th day as the same was performed since the

year 2011. They further contend that the decision to

extend Brahmaratotsava to 13 days does not violate

the Agama Shastra and hence, there is no need to

interfere with the impugned order passed by the

respondent No.2.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the

respondent No.6 has placed on record certain

documents, namely, copy of an official memorandum

issued by the Commissioner of Endowments dated

10.03.2011 to perform the Brahmaratotsava on 13th

day if there are no other traditional utsavas. Likewise,

he has placed on record copy of the letter dated

10.03.2011 addressed by the respondent No.2 to the

respondent No.3 permitting the Brahmaratotsava to

be held in the temple on the 13th day, copy of official

memorandum dated 12.01.2012 issued by the

Commissioner of Endowments and copy of letter dated

04.03.2013 addressed by the Commissioner of

Endowments to the respondent No.2. He has also

furnished proceedings of the meeting held by

respondent No.3 on 15.03.2014, where the

Brahmaratotsava was agreed to be held on the 13th

day where the people belonging to the Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes were granted permission

to offer prayers. He has also produced a hand bill for

the Brahmaratotsava at the temple which commenced

on 02.03.2012 and ended on 14.03.2012. Similarly,

hand bills for the Brahmaratotsava held between:

21.03.2013 and 02.04.2013; 10.03.2014 and

22.03.2014; 27.02.2015 and 11.03.2015; 17.03.2016

and 31.03.2016; 06.03.2017 and 20.03.2017;

23.02.2018 and 09.03.2018; 14.03.2019 and

26.03.2019; 03.03.2020 and 15.03.2020; 22.03.2021

and 03.04.2021; 12.03.2022 and 24.03.2022; and

01.03.2023 and 13.03.2023 are produced. He

contends that it has been the practice over the years

to conduct the Brahmaratotsava till the 13th day and

therefore, there is no harm in conducting

Brahmaratotsava on 13th day.

5. In order to get clarity about the practices

followed while performing Brahmaratotsava in

Vaishnavite temples, this Court summoned an Archak,

well versed in Agamashastra to apprise the Court

whether the shastras permit Brahmaratotsava to be

performed for 12 days or beyond. In response, he

informed the Court that as per the Vaikhanasagama

shastra, the utsavas are of three types. 1. Nityotsava

2. Shantyutsava and 3. Shradhotsava. Nityotsavas are

performed once every month while Shantyutsava is

performed to ward off evil, poverty etc. while

Shradhotsavas are performed by the devotee

whenever he/she desires. He claimed that as per the

Vaikhanasagama shastra, utsavas are performed for 9

days, 7 days and 5 days for the welfare of the nation

or the village or the King. These utsavas commence

with dhwajarohana and end by the dhwaja avarohana.

He submits that any utsava conducted after

Dhwajaavarohana, would be nityotsavas. He submits

that in the temple in question, the Brahmaratotsava

was performed for 9 days and Pushpayagotsava was

performed on the 10th day as repentance for any

mistake committed. He therefore, contended that as

per the utsavas performed in the temple in question,

the brahmaratotsava is performed up to 10 days and

that the utsavas performed thereafter are treated as

Nityotsavas which can be performed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner

reiterated the contentions made in the writ petition

and contended that if a practice is followed in a

temple, the official respondents cannot tamper or

tinker with such practice as that amounted to

interference with the practices followed in the temple

and thereby would violate section 58 of the Act of

1997. He further contended that this Court in its

order dated 01.06.2018 passed in W.P. No.9587/2015

did not even indicate that the Brahmaratotsava can

extend up to 13 days but the respondent No.2

misconstrued the order of this Court and allowed the

Brahmaratotsava to be performed even on the 13th

day. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order

passed by the respondent No.2 allowing the

Brahmaratotsava to be performed on the 13th day be

quashed.

7. Learned Additional Government Advocate

on the other hand contended that Brahmaratotsavas

are being performed in the temple for a period of 13

days from a long time and therefore, no harm would

be caused in allowing the same to be continued. This

was also voiced by the learned counsel for respondent

No.6.

8. I have considered the submissions made by

the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1

to 5 and learned counsel for respondent No.6.

9. It is not in dispute that Brahmaratotsava in

the temple in question was conducted for a period of

12 days in the month of Palguna Shudda Ashtami as

per navahika vaikhanasagama. However, the

Commissioner of Endowments unilaterally extended

the Brahmaratotsava up to a period of 15 days which

was challenged before this Court in W.P.

No.9587/2015. This Court in terms of the order dated

01.06.2018 held that the Rajya Dharmika Parishat is

required to administer the activities in notified

Institutions bearing in mind the religious practices,

customs, usage and traditions and for that purpose, it

may consult experts to assist in resolving any

controversy or dispute that may arise. This Court held

that under Section 58 of the Act of 1997, any person

exercising any power or performing any functions

under the Act "shall not interfere" but "shall observe"

the customs, usages, ceremonies and practices

appropriate to the Notified Institution or Declared

Institution in respect of which such powers are

exercised. This Court further held that the temple in

question is a 'B' category notified Institution and as

such, the Commissioner of Endowments could not

have passed an order as the appropriate authority is

the Deputy Commissioner. This Court held that the

experts who were consulted by the Commissioner of

Endowments indicated that the Brahmaratotsava

cannot exceed 13 days, but there was no reference of

any experts of Agama Shastra opining that

Brahmaratotsava can be extended contrary to the

customs and usage. This Court therefore quashed the

order dated 27.02.2015 passed by the Commissioner

of Endowments extending the Brahmaratotsava for a

period of 15 days and directed the Deputy

Commissioner to pass suitable orders in accordance

with law.

10. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the Deputy

Commissioner held a meeting on 22.02.2019 which

was attended by the Chief Executive Officer of the

temple, the petitioner herein, respondent No.6 and

the archaks of the temple. The archaks were of the

opinion that up to 2010, the Brahmaratotsava was

held for 12 days and from the year 2011, the

Commissioner of Endowments had granted permission

to hold the utsava on the 13th day if there were no

other traditional utsavas performed by the devotees.

This was done to ensure participation by the larger

public and to maintain harmony. They contended that

this continued for several years until a rival group

constituted Golden Charitable Trust who insisted on

performance of the utsava on the 13th day. The

respondent No.2 without going into the tradition and

practices followed in the temple held that the utsava

was performed on the 13th day from the year 2011

and therefore, if it is stopped, it would result in law

and order issues. Consequently, he permitted the

utsava to continue on the 13th day.

11. If the Agama Shastras provide that the

Brahmaratotsava should commence from

dhwajarohana and end on dhwajaavarohana, the

same cannot be tampered with by the official

respondents who are only vested with the jurisdiction

to administer the notified Institutions under the Act of

1997. A temple cannot be run like an industry, or at

the whims and fancies of a skeptic. The Act of 1997

too recognises that every pujari or an archak should

be well-versed in the Agama Shastras and all sacred

performance in the temple should be in accordance

with the Agama Shastras. A non-believer or an atheist

may deny these practices but it is these practices that

draws a believer to the temple. The State Government

which has taken temples into its fold to administer

them cannot tamper or tinker with the practices

ordained under the Shastras. If it is the established

practice in the temple to conduct the Brahmaratotsava

for 12 days, the respondent No.2 cannot extend it to

the 13th day on the ground that not doing so, would

result in law and order problems. This would be in

direct conflict with Section 58 of the Act of 1997.

Besides this, though the respondent No.2 was

required to obtain the opinion of experts before

considering the extension of Brahmaratotsava to 13

days, he did nothing but mutely acceded to the

request of the group led by the respondent No.6 and

extended the Brahmaratotsava for a period of 13

days. This conduct of the respondent No.2 is

unacceptable and is a clear violation of the directions

of this Court in W.P. No.9587/2015. Therefore, having

regard to the opinion of the expert secured by this

Court, it is held that henceforth Brahmaratotsava in

the temple in question shall be held only for a period

of 12 days and not beyond that. However, if the

respondent No.2 considers it appropriate to permit

any devotee to perform any Nityotsava after the

Brahmaratotsava, he may pass appropriate order to

that effect.

12. A disturbing fact is noticed by this Court

where the respondent No.2 has allowed devotees from

identified castes to perform certain rituals and poojas

in the temple in question. The hand bills and

pamphlets placed on record by the respondent No.6

bear testimony to the above fact. It is rather a matter

of great shame that the State authorities have

patronized caste even in temples, unmindful of the

Constitutional embargoes and also unmindful of the

fact that everyone is equal in the hall of God. It is

disgraceful that we haven't learnt this even after the

Lord broke down the wall to give darshan to Sri

Kanaka Dasa at Udupi and at various places where

similar such events have happened. It is not the caste

of men but the state of mind of men that attracts

divinity. Therefore, this Court considers it appropriate

to issue directions to the respondent No.2 not to

henceforth allow any ceremonies or poojas or rituals

to be performed by any group of people on the basis

of caste. In order to ensure this, the respondent No.2

shall issue suitable number of tickets for each service

to the Lord and Goddess in the temple to all devotees

on a non-discriminatory basis and on a first-come,

first-served basis. The proceeds of such tickets shall

be used for the performance of Brahmaratotsava and

other Nityotsavas.

13. The way in which the respondent No.2 has

passed the impugned order, generates an impression

that he has yielded to the pressure exerted by local

groups and therefore, this Court considers it

appropriate to dispose off the writ petition by giving

appropriate directions rather than remitting the

matter back to the respondent No.2.

14. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is

disposed off on the following terms:

i. The impugned order dated 27.02.2019

passed by the respondent No.2 is set

aside;

ii. It is declared that henceforth

Brahmaratotsava in the temple in question

shall be held for a period of 12 days;

iii. If there are no other utsavas, thereafter,

nityotsavas such as Pushpapallaki utsava,

Mutyala mantapa utsava, Chinna ratotsava,

Pushpa Mantapotsava, Davana

Mantoptsava and Brundavanotsava may be

performed on the subsequent dates;.

iv. The respondent Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 shall

ensure that no services are offered by the

devotees on the basis of caste, creed or

colour;

v. The respondent No.5 shall issue

appropriate number of tickets for each

utsava during the Brahmaratotsava and

such tickets shall be issued on first-come,

first-served basis without any

discrimination and the proceeds shall be

utilized for the activities of the

Brahmaratotsava; and

vi. It is open for the respondent Nos.2 to 5 to

regulate the manner and performance of

Nityotsavas after the Brahmaratotsava

which too shall be on a non-discriminatory

basis.