Sri. H K Nagaraj vs State Of Karnataka
2024 Latest Caselaw 5992 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sri. H K Nagaraj vs State Of Karnataka on 28 February, 2024

                                        -1-
                                                     NC: 2024:KHC:8257
                                                  WP No. 3636 of 2024




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                    DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

                                      BEFORE
                 THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

                       WRIT PETITION NO.3636 OF 2024 (S-RES)

            BETWEEN:

                  SRI H.K NAGARAJ
                  S/O KESHAVAGOWDA
                  AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
                  GROUP D EMPLOYEE (PEON)
                  CHENNAKESHAVASWAMY TEMPLE
                  BELUR HASSAN TALUK
                  HASSAN DISTRICT (NOW NOT IN SERVICE)
                  R/AT TEMPLE QTRS, MAIN ROAD
                  BELUR, HASSAN DISTRICT

                                                         ...PETITIONER

            (BY SRI.CHANDRAKANTH R GOULAY, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by   AND:
ALBHAGYA
Location:   1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
HIGH              REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
COURT OF
KARNATAKA         DEPARTMENT OF ENDOWMENT
                  M.S.BUILDING
                  BENGALURU - 560 001

            2.    THE COMMISSIONER
                  DEPARTMENT OF RELIGIOUS
                  CHARITABLE AND ENDOWMENT
                  CHAMARAJAPETE
                  BENGALURU - 560 018
                            -2-
                                        NC: 2024:KHC:8257
                                      WP No. 3636 of 2024




3.   THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
     SRI.CHENNAKESHWARASWAMY TEMPLE
     BELUR
     HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 115

4.   THE MANAGING COMMITTEE
     SRI.CHENNAKESHWARASWAMY TEMPLE
     BELUR
     HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 115
     REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT

                                         ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.B.A.RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R.3 AND R.4;
SMT.B.SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R.1 AND R.2)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL
FOR RELEVANT RECORDS AND QUASH THE ORDER DTD
31.08.2023 BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN CASE NO.ADM
07/AP 07/2023-24 VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND THE IMPUGNED
O.M BEARING NO.CKSTCR/SIBBANDI/21-22 DTD 04.06.2022
SIGNED BY BOTH R3 AND 4 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AS
ARBITRARY ILLEGAL AND ARE OFFENDING ARTICLES 14
AND 16 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ALSO IN
VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE KARNATAKA HINDU
RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT
ACT, 1997 AND THE RULES 2002, WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL
SERVICE AND MONETARY BENEFITS AND ETC.


     THIS   PETITION,   COMING   ON   FOR   PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                    -3-
                                                    NC: 2024:KHC:8257
                                                WP No. 3636 of 2024




                              ORDER

The captioned writ petition is filed by the

petitioner assailing the order dated 31.08.2023 passed by

respondent No.2 as per Annexure-G, wherein the appeal

filed by the petitioner is dismissed on the ground of

limitation.

2. The petitioner, without availing remedy of an

appeal provided under Section 16(2) of the Hindu

Religious Institution and Charitable Endowments Act

knocked doors of the Writ Court in W.P.No.22214/2022.

This Court accepting contention of the State that the

petitioner has a remedy of an appeal disposed off the writ

petition and relegated petitioner to file an appeal before

the Appellate Authority within a period of four weeks.

3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent

No.3 would, however, contest this petition by contending

that petitioner, though reserved with liberty at the hands

of this Court to prefer an appeal within four weeks, failed

NC: 2024:KHC:8257

to avail benefit granted by this Court. Further, he would

point out that as on the date of passing impugned order,

the petitioner had failed to file an application under

Section 5 of the Limitation Act and therefore, he would

contend that no purpose would be served to remit the

matter as the petitioner had failed to file an application

under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation

of delay as on the date of passing of the impugned order.

4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3

and learned AGA

5. Pursuant to the disposal of the writ petition by

this Court, it appears that petitioner has failed to prefer an

appeal within time prescribed by this Court. The Appellate

Authority, without affording an opportunity to the

petitioner to file an application seeking condonation of

delay, has proceeded to dismiss the appeal on the ground

that it is a belated appeal and the same is not supported

NC: 2024:KHC:8257

by an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation

Act. The order under challenge is too hyper technical.

6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector,

Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another vs. Mst.Katji

and others1 has laid down illustrative contours under

which an application for condonation of delay requires to

be examined. It has been held in the aforesaid judgment

to the following effect:

"3. The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits'. The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life purpose for the existence of the institution of Courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this

AIR 1987 SC 1353

NC: 2024:KHC:8257

Court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other Courts in the hierarchy."

7. Though there is some laxness on the part of

the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to accede to the

arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.3.

8. Having taken cognizance of the facts of the

case, the dismissal of appeal on the ground of delay by the

Appellate Authority resists fundamental question of

procedural fairness and the principles of natural justice,

the dismissal of appeal by the Appellate Authority without

giving an opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case

on merits violates this fundamental principle. Though the

material on record clearly reveals that petitioner failed to

file an appeal within the stipulated time frame granted by

this Court, it was still incumbent upon the Appellate

Authority to exercise discretion and to show some

indulgence particularly when fundamental rights are at

NC: 2024:KHC:8257

stake. The dismissal of appeal on technical grounds

without considering substantive issues at hand has

resulted in grave injustice to the petitioner. Therefore, in

pursuit of justice and fairness, this Court deems it fit and

necessary to intervene in this matter. The case deserves

to be remitted back to the Appellate Authority with clear

directives to reconsider the appeal on merits, affording the

petitioner a fair and impartial opportunity to present his

case. This Court emphasizes that principles of natural

justice must be upheld in all legal proceedings and

procedural technicalities should not supersede substantive

justice. Failure to adhere to these foundational principles

would undermine the integrity of the legal system and

erode public trust in the administration of justice.

9. The petitioner is assailing order of dismissal

from service. Therefore, the valuable rights are involved.

In such a situation, the Authorities are bound to bear in

mind that lis cannot be given a closure on hyper technical

grounds. The Appellate Court ought to have granted an

NC: 2024:KHC:8257

opportunity to the petitioner to file an application under

Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

10. It is borne out from the records that an

attempt is made by the petitioner by filing an application

seeking condonation of delay. An application, which is

duly sworn by an affidavit on 31.08.2023, is placed on

record before this Court to substantiate that the petitioner

did make an attempt to condone the delay. On examining

these relevant documents, I am of the view that

appellants' right cannot be given a closure by dismissing

an appeal on the ground of delay. If such a recourse is

entertained, it would lead to mis-carriage of justice.

11. For the reasons stated supra, this Court

proceeds to pass the following;

ORDER

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

                                                       NC: 2024:KHC:8257





                         (ii)   The     impugned       order    dated

31.08.2023 passed by respondent No.2 as per Annexure-G is hereby quashed.

(iii) The petitioner is hereby directed to file an application before the Appellate Authority within four weeks from the date of receipt of order copy and the Appellate Authority is instructed to expedite the proceedings and render the decision on the merits of the case without adopting hyper technical approach on the point of delay.

(iv) The consequent notice dated 15.01.2024 calling upon the petitioner to vacate the quarters is hereby quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

NBM