Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Ummathuru Urukateswari Ammanavara ... on 1 October, 2024
-1-
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w
WA No.209 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WA NO.154 OF 2024 (GM-R/C)
C/W
WA NO.209 OF 2024 (GM-R/C)
IN WA NO.154 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1 . SRI. JAYASHANKAR,
S/O. BASAVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
UMMATTURU VILLAGE,
CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGARA - 571 313.
2 . SRI. REVANNA,
S/O. GURU MALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/A: MEGALA BEEDHI,
UMMATHUR, CHAMARAJANAGARA - 571 316.
3 . SRI. SWAMY,
S/O. SIDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/AT: NO.150, TERINA BEEDHI,
UMMATHUR, CHAMARAJANAGARA - 571 316.
4 . SRI.KUMAR R.,
S/O. RANGASWAMY NAYAKA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
-2-
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w
WA No.209 of 2024
R/AT: NO. 713, NAYAKAS STREET,
UMMATHUR,CHAMARAJANAGARA - 571 316.
5 . SRI. PUTTASWAMY S.,
S/O SANNAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT: NO 1287, AMBEDKAR BADAVANE,
UMMATHUR, CHAMARAJANAGARA - 571 316.
6 . SRI. RAMAIAH,
S/O KURI SIDDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
R/AT: AMBEDKAR BADAVANE,
UMMATHUR, CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 316.
7 . SRI. PUTTASWAMY,
S/O. MADHA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/A: NO. 81, K.B. MODALLA,
UMMATHUR, CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 316.
8 . SRI. PRABHUSWAMY S.,
S/O. SHIVANNA L.,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/A: NO 465, NANJANGUDU ROAD,
UMMATHUR, CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 316.
9 . SRI. MADEVANAIKA,
S/O. GURUSIDDANAYAKA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/A: NAYAKA STREET,
SANTHEMARALLI HOBLI,
UMMATHUR, CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 316.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SARAVANA.S., ADVOCATE)
-3-
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w
WA No.209 of 2024
AND:
1 . UMMATHURU URUKATESHWARI
AMMANAVARA TEMPLE,
REGISTERED TRUST,
REP. BY ITS ADYAKSHA,
SRI. S. GURUMALLAPPA,
UMMATTURU VILLAGE,
SANTHEMARAHALLI HOBLI,
CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 313.
2 . SRI. S. GURUMALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS,
ADHYAKSHA,
UMMATHUR URUKATESHWARI
AMMANAVARA TEMPLE,
UMMATTURU VILLAGE,
SANTHEMARAHALLI HOBLI,
CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 313.
3 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
RELIGIOUS CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS
DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING,
DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4 . THE COMMISSIONER,
(RELIGIOUS CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS
DEPARTMENT), 4TH FLOOR, MINTO
SRI. ANAJANEYA BHAVANA, A.V. ROAD,
CHAMARAJAPET, BENGALURU - 560 018.
5 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT,
CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 313.
-4-
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w
WA No.209 of 2024
6 . THE TAHASILDAR,
CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 313.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADV. FOR C/R1 & C/R2:
SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURKAR, AGA FOR
SRI. B.RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R3 TO R6)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 18.01.2024
IN WP NO-6956/2022 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WP
FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2, ETC.
*****
IN WA NO.209 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
(RELIGIOUS CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS
DEPARTMENT), M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2 . THE COMMISSIONER,
(RELIGIOUS CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS
DEPARTMENT), 4TH FLOOR,
MINTO SRI. ANJANEYA BHAVANA,
A.V. ROAD, CHAMARAJAPET,
BENGALURU - 560 018.
3 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT
CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 313.
-5-
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w
WA No.209 of 2024
4 . THE TAHASILDAR,
CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 313.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURKAR, AGA for
SRI. B. RAVINDRANATH, AGA)
AND:
1 . UMMATHURU URUKATESHWARI
AMMANAVARA TEMPLE,
REGISTERED TRUST,
REP. BY ITS ADYAKSHA,
SRI. S. GURUMALLAPPA,
UMMATTURU VILLAGE,
SANTHEMARAHALLI HOBLI,
CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK - 571 313.
2 . SRI. S. GURUMALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS,
ADHYAKSHA,
UMMATHURU URUKATESHWARI
AMMANAVARA TEMPLE,
UMMATTURU VILLAGE,
SANTHEMARAHALLI HOBLI,
CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK - 571 313.
3 . JAYASHANKAR,
S/O. BASAVANNA,
AGE MAJOR,
UMMATTURU VILLAGE,
CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 313.
4 . SRI. REVANNA,
S/O GURU MALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
-6-
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w
WA No.209 of 2024
RESIDING AT MEGALA BEEDHI,
UMMATHUR, CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 316.
5 . SRI. SWAMY,
S/O. SIDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 150,
TERINA BEEDHI,
UMMATHUR, CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 316.
6 . SRI. KUMAR R.,
S/O RANGASWAMY NAYAKA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.713,
NAYAKAS STREET,
UMMATHUR, CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 316.
7 . SRI. PUTTASWAMY S.,
S/O SANNAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.1287,
AMBEDKAR BADAVANE,
UMMATHUR, CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 316.
8 . SRI. RAMAIAH,
S/O KURI SIDDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
RESIDING AT AMBEDKAR BADAVANE,
UMMATHUR, CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 316
9 . SRI. PUTTASWAMY,
S/O. MADHA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.81,
K.B.MODALLA, UMMATHUR,
CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 316.
10 SRI. PRABHUSWAMY S.,
. S/O SHIVANNA L.,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
-7-
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w
WA No.209 of 2024
RESIDING AT NO.465,
NANJANAGUDU ROAD,
UMMATHUR, CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 316.
11 SRI. MADEVANAIKA,
. S/O GURUSIDDANAYAKA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NAYAKA STREET,
SANTHEMARALLI HOBLI,
UMMATHUR, CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 316.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADV. FOR C/R1 & C/R2;
SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SARAVANA S., ADV. FOR R3 TO R11)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.01.2024 PASSED BY
THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No. 6956/2022 IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE WRIT APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGEMENT ON 25.09.2024, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, V. KAMESWAR
RAO, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO)
These two appeals have been filed by the appellants
challenging the order dated 18.01.2024 passed by the
learned Single Judge in two writ petitions being
WP No.14910/2021 c/w WP No.6956/2022, whereby the
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w
learned Single Judge has allowed the petitions by stating
in paragraph No.20 as under:
"20. For the aforesaid discussions, this Court is
of the view that the action of respondent Nos. 1 to 3
is beyond the scope of Section 43 of the Act.
Consequently, the impugned order under Section 42
of the Act is without jurisdiction and unsustainable.
Hence, the following;
ORDER
i) W.P.No.6956/2022 is allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 10.03.2022
passed by respondent No.1 at Annexure A
bearing No.Kum.E.01.Mu.Aa. Bi.2022 is
quashed.
iii) Respondent Nos.5 to 13 are at liberty to
initiate proceedings in terms of Section 92
of CPC before the competent court, in
accordance with law.
iv) In view of order dated 10.03.2022 passed
by respondent No.1 under Section 42 of the
Act being quashed, W.P.No.14910/2021 is
allowed directing the respondents to
handover the key, accounts authorization to
operate the bank account and such other
acts in relation to the Ummathuru Sri
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w
Urkatheshwari Ammanavara Temple to
petitioner No.1-Trust.
v) No order as to costs."
2. Suffice to state, the aforesaid two writ petitions
were filed (i) challenging the order dated 10.03.2022 (in
WP No.6956/2022) passed by the appellant No.1 (in WA
No.209/2024) and (ii) for a direction to Tahsildar to
implement the direction issued by this Court in WP
No.21934/2016 dated 09.11.2017. It may be stated here
that both the writ petitions were filed by respondents No.1
and 2 in both the appeals.
3. The facts, as noted by the learned Single Judge
are, respondent No.1 is a Trust registered through
registered deed dated 24.11.2014.
4. One Sri. Puttanna and others filed an application
under Section 92(A) of CPC in Mis.No.9/2014 seeking
permission to file a suit against respondent No.1. The
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagara
rejected the said application by order dated 29.02.2016.
Aggrieved by the said order, MFA No.1827/2016 was
- 10 -
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w
preferred before this Court. The appeal came to be
dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to initiate such other
proceedings, in accordance with law.
5. Respondents No.1 and 2 preferred WP
No.21934/2016 seeking direction against appellant No.4
(Tahsildar) (in WA No.209/2024) to remove the seal and
to open the lock of the Temple to manage the affairs of
temple except Hundi in view of formation of the Trust.
6. This Court, vide order dated 09.11.2017,
directed the Tahsildar to handover the key of the Temple
and to arrange for Darshan as per the custom that was
being followed.
7. It is noted by the learned Single Judge that
people of Ummathuru Village preferred public interest
litigation (PIL) in WP No.2037/2020 seeking direction to
the Assistant Commissioner, Kollegal Sub-division,
Kollegal, Chamarajanagara District to take management of
the Temple. The Division Bench of this Court, by order
dated 18.02.2021, considering the statement made by the
- 11 -
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w
State Government that proceedings under Section 43 of
the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable
Endowments Act, 1997 ('the Act' for short) have been
initiated by issuance of show-cause notice, disposed of the
writ petition directing the State Government to ensure that
the proceedings in terms of Section 43 of the Act are
concluded and appropriate decision is taken in accordance
with law within a reasonable time. The Commissioner
i.e., appellant No.2 herein issued show-cause notice under
Section 43(6) for a decision under Section 42 of the Act.
8. It is noted that a notice under Section 43(6) of
the Act to conduct enquiry and to submit a report was
issued to the Deputy Commissioner/appellant No.3 (in WA
No.209/2024).
9. Respondent No.1 filed objections to the show-
cause notice dated 06.09.2021. Even the written
submissions were filed on 09.09.2021. The Deputy
Commissioner submitted report dated 15.09.2021 to
appellant No.2 namely the Commissioner (Religious
Charitable Endowments Department) recommending
- 12 -
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w
categorization of respondent No.1-Temple to be declared
institution under Section 42 of the Act. The Commissioner
in turn send his proposal vide order dated 14.12.2021 to
the appellant No.1 (in WA No.209/2024). The appellant
No.1 on the recommendation of the Commissioner, by
order dated 10.03.2022, categorized respondent No.1-
Temple as declared institution under Chapter VIII of the
Act.
10. The case of respondents No.1 and 2 before the
learned Single Judge was that, the report dated
15.09.2021 submitted by the Deputy Commissioner is in
violation of the procedure prescribed under Section 43 of
the Act. Appellant No.2/Commissioner has not appointed
or authorized any Officer sub-ordinate to him to hold any
enquiry into the objections. Section 43(7) of the Act
mandates the Commissioner considering the enquiry
report submitted under Section 43(6) to report to the
State Government to declare such institution to be subject
to the provisions of Chapter VIII. In view of no Enquiry
Officer was appointed, report submitted by the
- 13 -
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w
Commissioner is in contravention of the procedure
contemplated under Section 43 of the Act. Consequently,
the declaration under Section 42 of the Act is void. It was
also stated that the findings recorded by the Deputy
Commissioner are contradictory; reasons assigned in the
report that dispute has arisen after creation of Trust
consisting of 15 Trustees during 2014 is without any basis.
Further, the reasons assigned in the report by appellant
No.3 (in WA No.209/2024) to declare the Temple as
declared institution under Section 42 of the Act would not
fall within the ambit of mismanagement as required under
Sections 42 and 43 of the Act.
11. The case of the appellants (in WA No.154/2014)
who were respondents No.5 to 13 before the learned
Single Judge was, while passing the order of declaration
under Section 42 of the Act, it is not necessary to record
any satisfaction and report of the Commissioner in terms
of Section 43(7) is sufficient. No specific procedure is
followed for conducting enquiry under Section 43(6) of the
Act. It was also stated that the Trust has no right to
- 14 -
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w
administer the Temple. They justified the report of
appellant No.3/Deputy Commissioner.
12. The State Government and its functionaries,
who are the appellants in WA No.209/2024, would justify
the order passed on 10.03.2022. In fact, the report was
justified on the basis of the reasons assigned at
paragraphs No.4 to 9 of the report.
13. The learned Single Judge, while allowing the
petition has, in paragraphs No.13 to 19, stated as under:
"13. Respondent No.2 has issued show cause notice
at Annexure-F under Section 43(1) of the Act. The
petitioners have preferred objections and written
submissions at Annexures-G and G1. Respondent
No.3 is the authorized officer to conduct enquiry in to
the objections which is in compliance of Section
43(6) of the Act at Annexure-H. Respondent No.3
has submitted report on 15.09.2021, Annexure-B.
Respondent No.2 in terms of Section 43(7) of the Act
has submitted a report to the Government
recommending declaration of petitioner No.1 as
declared institution under Section 42 of the Act.
Respondent No.1 acting on the recommendation of
respondent No.2 has declared petitioner No.1 as
declared institution under Section 42 of the Act. In
- 15 -
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w
view of the above, the procedure contemplated
under Section 43 of the Act has been followed. In the
circumstance, the contention of the petitioners that
procedure under Section 43 of the Act has not been
followed cannot be accepted and the same is
rejected.
14. Section 42 of the Act mandates the State
Government to declare an institution under Chapter-
VIII of the Act on being satisfied with the report of
the Commissioner under Section 43 of the Act. As
seen from the impugned order at Annexure-A,
respondent No.1 except reiterating the conclusion
arrived at by the enquiry officer i.e. respondent No.3
and except making a reference to the extent that
recommendation of the Commissioner has been
thoroughly examined, no satisfaction has been
recorded on the report of the Commissioner
submitted under Section 43 of the Act to declare the
institution under Chapter VIII of the Act. On the
basis of report of respondent No.3 and
recommendation of respondent No.2, respondent
No.1 has to record its satisfaction to arrive at a
conclusion for the purpose of Section 42 of the Act.
Mere reference to enquiry report of respondent No.3
and recommendation of respondent No.2 and
concluding under Section 42 of the Act is only on the
borrowed opinion. The order declaring the institution
under Chapter VIII by respondent No.1 is without
recording satisfaction under Section 42 of the Act
- 16 -
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w
and without application of mind. For the aforesaid
reasons, the impugned order at Annexure-A cannot
be sustained.
15. Respondent No.3 in his enquiry report has
referred to various aspects with regard to litigations
between various parties from 1944-1945 to 1952-53
and upto 2014. The enquiry report further places
undisputed facts upto 2014. There was no dispute
regarding the management of the Temple. The
dispute has arisen on creation of Trust in 2014
consisting of 15 trustees. This conclusion is without
any basis. Respondent No.3 has not recorded any
finding as to how the creation of Trust after lapse of
69 years results in mismanagement in the temple. In
the same report, contradicting all other reasons,
respondent No.3 records a finding that there is
religious peace and harmony being maintained while
conducting Ummathuru Sri Urkatheshwari
Ammanavara Utsav, consisting of 19 communities.
The above finding by the enquiry officer is an
appreciation of the peace and harmony being
maintained by the residents of the village while
performing jatra activities.
16. The entire dispute has arisen due to the
complaint lodged by respondent Nos.5 to 13 with
reference to mismanagement of the Temple by the
Trust. The Trust Deed at Annexure-J depicts it as a
Public Charitable Trust having objects of various
- 17 -
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w
public charitable activities at large. The total number
of trustees declared is 15 in number. If respondent
Nos.5 to 13 have any dispute against the Trust,
Section 92 of CPC provides the aggrieved person to
institute suit before the Principal Civil Court or
original jurisdiction within the local limits of
jurisdiction where the Trust is situated.
17. The findings recorded by respondent No.3 that
disputes have arisen after the Trust coming into
existence in the year 2014, is without any basis. It is
not open to respondent No.3 to record any finding on
the correctness of the manner in which the Trust has
been created, its composition and activities when the
same is registered and remedy to redress grievance
is provided under Section 92 of CPC.
18. Respondent Nos.5 to 13 have statutory remedy
under Section 92 of CPC to approach competent Civil
Court for redressal of their grievance in the manner
in which the Trust has been created and the alleged
breach of objects of the Trust, if any.
19. The contention of the petitioner that in view of
Section 78 of the Act read with Sub-section (2) of
Section 92 of CPC., suit under Sub-section (1) of
Section 92 of CPC is not maintainable, is not correct.
Section 78 of the Act excludes applicability of
Religious Endowment Act, 1863 to institutions
governed under 1997 Act. Similarly, the bar of civil
suit under Section 92(2) of CPC is in respect of
- 18 -
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w
institutions governed by the Religious Endowment
Act, 1863. In the present case, the proceedings have
been instituted under Section 43 of the 1997 Act and
Section 92 of CPC is applicable."
Submissions:
14. The submission of learned Additional Advocate
General appearing for the appellants (in WA No.209/2024)
is that, the issues which arise for consideration in these
appeals are the following:
i. Whether the procedure prescribed under the Act
under Section 42 and Section 43 has been followed
by the appellant before declaring the Temple as
declared institution?
ii. Whether the impugned order passed by the learned
Single Judge dated 18.01.2024 in WP No.6956/2022
is contrary to law and facts of the case?
15. According to her, the institution which is the
subject matter of the present appeals can be categorized
as a declared institution within the meaning of Section 42
of the Act. She supports the reasons assigned by the
Deputy Commissioner/Commissioner. According to her,
the proper procedure as contemplated under Section 43
- 19 -
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w
has been followed. She states that the order passed by
the learned Single Judge is contrary to law and the facts of
the case. She states, since there was an objection with
regard to the administration of the Temple by a
community, the report and the order categorizing
respondent No.1 as declared institution is justified. She
has relied upon the following judgments of this Court in
support of her submissions:
i. Sri. Rama Temple Committee and Others -Vs.-
M/s Veerashaiva Co-operative Society and
Another [CRP No.608/2015, decided on
18.10.2022];
ii. B.M. Sukumar Shetty and Others -Vs.- State of
Karnataka and Others [2005 SCC OnLine Kar
506].
16. Insofar as WA No.154/2024 is concerned, Sri.
D.R.Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellants would submit that the administrative
governance of Temples, Mutts and Endowments are
monitored by the Government under the Act. The
Commissioner of Hindu Religious Charitable Endowments
- 20 -
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w
Department is empowered to take action under Section 43
of the Act if he has reason to believe that a religious
institution is mismanaged. According to him, the learned
Single Judge having recorded finding that the procedure
adopted by the Commissioner in the present case is found
to be legal and proper, the learned Single Judge ought not
to have quashed the order in toto on the ground that the
State Government has not recorded reasons indicating its
satisfaction for passing the order. According to
Sri. Ravishankar, satisfaction is essentially a condition of
the mind. In other words, it is his submission that the
report of the Commissioner in terms of Section 43(7) is
sufficient. He also stated, the learned Single Judge,
without addressing the issue as to whether recording of
satisfaction is mandatory or directory in the light of finding
that procedure adopted under Section 42 is proper or
whether non-recording reasons for satisfaction is curable
or not, could not have quashed the proceedings in toto.
He stated that even if the conclusion of the learned Single
Judge was that there was no reasoning given, the learned
- 21 -
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w
Single Judge should have remanded the matter to the
authorities for fresh consideration. He also challenges the
finding of the learned Single Judge on Section 92 of CPC
by stating that Section 92 of CPC operates in a different
sphere and has no bearing insofar as action under Section
42 of the Act. Same is an independent exercise of power
by the Government under a statute. According to him, the
direction of the learned Single Judge to initiate
proceedings in terms of Section 92 of CPC before
competent Court is wholly unwarranted. He stated that
the effect of the impugned order is that the learned Single
Judge has sought to take away the jurisdiction and powers
of the State Government and the Commissioner for
administrative governances of Temples in terms of the
provisions under the Act. He stated that it is a case where
the impugned order of the Tribunal needs to be set aside.
17. Sri. K.Chandranath Ariga, learned counsel
appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 in both the appeals,
at the outset, challenged the locus of the State
Government, to file the appeal impugning the order
- 22 -
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w
passed by the learned Single Judge. That apart, it is his
submission that there is a small village viz., Ummattur in
Chamarajanagar Taluk, Chamarajanagar District and the
deity is Sri. Urukatheshwari. The Temple is administered
by the Lingayath Community of the village for more than
300 years. The pariwars, also called as Nayaka
Community started obstructing the administration of the
Temple. Reference is given to the suit in
OS No.648/1944-45 filed at the Munsiff Court at
Nanjanagud to declare that their community has the right
to perform pooja and other rituals. The reference is also
given to an appeal in RA No.20/1946-47 filed before the
Sub-ordinate Judge at Mysuru and also to an appeal in
RSA No.184/1949-50 filed before this Court. A reference
is also made to OS No.664/1952-53 on the file of Munsiff
Court at Nanjanagud. It was stated by him that the Trust
was founded and registered on 24.11.2014 by the
Lingayath Community by name 'Ummatturu Urkatheshwari
Ammanavara Devasthana Mandali' for management of the
Temple. The Trust is managing the affairs of the Temple
- 23 -
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w
without any blemish. A reference is also made to
Mis.No.9/2014 under Section 92 of CPC for a mandatory
injunction against the Trustees. The Tahsildar of
Chamarajanagar had put a seal on the Temple door. This
was challenged by the Trust and the trustees in WP
No.21934/2014 which was disposed of on 28.04.2016
wherein it was ordered that the offering in the Hundi shall
be taken control by the Tahsildar and the Tahsildar was
directed to open the door of the Temple on the first
Tuuesday of every month. Finally, the said petition was
allowed and the Tahsildar was directed to hand-over the
keys of the Temple to the President of the Trust by order
dated 09.11.2017. The Trust thereafter continued to
manage the affairs. A reference is also made by him to a
public interest litigation (PIL) in WP No.2037/2020 seeking
a direction to notify the Temple under Section 42 and 43
of the Act. The said writ petition was disposed of on
18.02.2021 with an observation that the State may ensure
the proceedings in terms of Section 43 of the Act. It is
thereafter, action was taken by the Commissioner, Hindu
- 24 -
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w
Religious Charitable Endowments resulting in the order
dated 10.03.2022. He submits that the learned Single
Judge appreciating the fact that there is no report of
mismanagement by the Trust in the affairs of the Temple,
allowed the writ petition and quashed the Government
Order. He also stated, to attract Section 42 of the Act,
there must be 'mismanagement'. According to him, in his
report dated 15.09.2021 the Deputy Commissioner, has
not stated that there is mismanagement of the Temple.
The complaint by the Section of the Society against the
Temple is that they are not given representation in the
Trust. He has made reference to the proceedings initiated
in the year 2014 under Section 92 of CPC against
respondent No.1 on the file of Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar in Misc.No.09/2014 to
form a scheme for the management of the 1st respondent-
Trust. According to him, the scope of enquiry under
Section 43 of the Act cannot be enlarged to that of a
scheme suit under Section 92 of CPC. Therefore, enquiry
- 25 -
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w
under Section 43 of the Act is not permissible. He seeks
dismissal of the appeals.
Analysis:
18. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
in both the appeals, the issue which arises for
consideration in these appeals is whether the learned
Single Judge is justified in setting aside the order dated
10.03.2022 passed by the appellant No.1 (in
WA No.209/2024) categorizing respondent No.1-Temple as
declared institution under Section 42 of the Act.
19. We have already reproduced the relevant
paragraphs of the impugned judgment wherein the learned
Single Judge has drawn his conclusion, it can be summed
up as under:
i. The procedure contemplated under Section 43 of the
Act has been followed;
ii. Appellant No.1 except reiterating the conclusion
arrived at by the Enquiry Officer i.e., the
- 26 -
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w
Commissioner, he has not recorded his satisfaction
on the report of the Commissioner;
iii. Appellant No.1 has to record its satisfaction to arrive
at a conclusion for the purpose of Section 42 of the
Act.
iv. Mere referring to the enquiry report without
satisfaction, as stated by the learned Single Judge, is
only a borrowed opinion;
v. The conclusion of the Commissioner in his report that
despite the dispute has arisen on creation of Trust in
the year 2014 consisting of 15 trustees is without
any basis;
vi. The Commissioner has not recorded any finding as to
how the creation of Trust after lapse of 67 years,
resulted in the mismanagement of the temple;
vii. If the appellants in WA No.154/2024 (respondents
No.5 to 13 in WP No.6956/2022) have any dispute
against the Trust, Section 92 of CPC provides the
aggrieved person to institute a suit before the
- 27 -
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w
Principal Civil Court within the local limits of
jurisdiction where the Trust is situated.
20. Having noted the findings of the learned Single
Judge, insofar as the submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties are concerned, at the outset, we
shall deal with the submission of Sri. Ariga on the
locus standi of State of Karnataka to file the appeal
challenging the order of the learned Single Judge. Suffice
to state, the learned Single Judge having set aside the
order passed by the State of Karnataka, that too with
findings that no satisfaction has been recorded by
appellant No.1, the same shall give cause of action for the
State of Karnataka. So, in that sense, locus of the State
of Karnataka to challenge the impugned order cannot be
contested.
21. The other issue is whether the learned Single
Judge is right to hold that appellant No.1-State of
Karnataka has not recorded its satisfaction in the
impugned order dated 10.03.2022. To answer this
- 28 -
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w
question, it is necessary to see as to what was said by the
Commissioner and in what manner appellant No.1 has
passed the order. We find from Annexure-A wherein
appellant No.1, after referring to letter dated 14.12.2021
of the Commissioner under the heading 'Proposal' has
reproduced the contents of the letter dated 14.12.2021
and passed the order dated 10.03.2022 by stating that the
proposal of the Commissioner, Endowment Department
has been examined thoroughly and ordered as under:
" xx xx xx xx xx xx
Government Order No: RD 01 MU A Bi 2022
Bangalore: Dated: 10-03-2022
The aspects explained in the proposal has been
examined, it has been ordered by declaring the
Sri Umathuru Urukateshwari Amma Temple in
Ummathuru Village, Chamarajanagara Taluk,
Chamarajanagara District as Declared Institution as
per Section 42 and 43 of Karnataka Hindu Religious
Institutions and Charitable Endowment Act 1997."
22. The above clearly justifies the conclusion of the
learned Single Judge that appellant No.1 has not recorded
its satisfaction on the proposal of the Commissioner.
Being under obligation under Section 42 of the Act, the
appellant No.1 is required to form its satisfaction on the
- 29 -
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w
report of the Commissioner whether or not Hindu Religious
Institution has been mismanaged. It could not have
simply followed the proposal of the Commissioner to be its
satisfaction. The order under Section 42 must reflect the
application of mind on the report and the material to
arrive at a satisfaction as required under Section 42 and
such an order should be a reasoned and speaking order.
This we say so because, Section 42 of the Act puts an
obligation on the State Government where it is satisfied on
a report of the Commissioner that a Hindu Religious
Institution is being mismanaged, to pass an order which
necessarily has to be a speaking order, as such an order
shall speak for itself; the justification behind the State
Government's conclusion shall depict fairness and
transparency. The same shall also enable the parties to
know the reasons behind the decision of the State
Government. Even if remedy is invoked by any of the
parties, the Court concerned shall be able to see the
reasons of the State Government to pass the order in a
particular manner.
- 30 -
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w
23. Having said that, we must also state that the
learned Single Judge having come to the conclusion that
appellant No.1 has not recorded its satisfaction that
institution is mismanaged, was, only required to remand
the matter to appellant No.1/State Government with a
direction to form its satisfaction as is required under
Section 42 by a reasoned and speaking order. Instead, we
find the learned Single Judge himself dealt with the
objections put by the appellants (in WA No.154/2024) to
reject them, to set aside the order dated 10.03.2022.
Surely by doing so, the learned Single Judge has conferred
upon himself the power/function which otherwise lies with
State Government under Section 42 of the Act.
24. We also note the conclusion of the learned Single
Judge in paragraph No.16 that, if the appellants (in
WA No.154/2024) have any dispute against the Trust,
Section 92 of CPC provides the aggrieved person to
institute suit before the Principal Civil Court. The said
conclusion is on the basis that there is an existing dispute
on the creation of the Trust in 2014 consisting of 15
- 31 -
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w
trustees. But, we note the learned Single Judge has, in
paragraph No.16, also held that the entire dispute has
arisen due to a complaint lodged by the appellants (in WA
No.154/2024) with reference to mismanagement of
Temple by the Trust. If that be so, whether the institution
is being mismanaged or not has to be decided by the State
Government under Section 42 of the Act. The exercise of
power under Section 42 by the State Government
has no relation/connection with the remedy under
Section 92 of CPC. Even otherwise if the appellants
(in WA No.154/2024) have a cause, then remedy (if
available) under Section 92 of CPC, could be invoked, but
the said remedy shall not affect the right/obligation of the
State Government to exercise its power and pass reasoned
and a speaking order under Section 42 of the Act. Hence,
we are of the view, the impugned order passed by the
learned Single Judge [except direction No. (ii)] is liable to
be set aside, by remanding the matter to the State
Government with a direction that the State Government
shall pass a speaking and reasoned order after considering
- 32 -
WA No. 154 of 2024 c/w
all the material/stand of the parties available on record,
but without being influenced by the filing of the appeal by
the State Government and its pleadings, within a period of
three weeks from today. Till then, status quo as existing
today, shall continue. The writ appeals are disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
In view of disposal of these writ appeals, pending IAs
are also disposed of as infructuous.
Sd/-
(V KAMESWAR RAO)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
PA
