Karnataka High Court
K R Satish vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:39504-DB
WA No. 1610 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1610 OF 2024 (GM-R/C)
BETWEEN:
K R SATISH
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR
SRI. VINEETH S,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
S/O LATE K R SATISH
NO.4804, 2ND BLOCK, 9TH MAIN,
2ND CROSS, BSK I STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 050.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ABHINAV RAMANAND A, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
AMBIKA H B DEPARTMENT OF MUZRAI
Location: M.S.BUILDING,
High Court
of Karnataka DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
KARNATAKA HINDU RELIGIOUS
INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS,
4TH FLOOR,
SRI MALAIMAHADESHWARA
VARTHA BHAVANA
ALUR VENKAT RAO ROAD,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:39504-DB
WA No. 1610 of 2024
HC-KAR
CHAMRAJPET,
BENGALURU 560 004.
3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
SRI. LAKSHMINARASIMHASWAMY TEMPLE,
BALEPET, BANGALORE - 560 053.
4. SMT. LALITHA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
W/O. LATE.K.S.VARADACHAR
5. SMT. B.V. ARUNA DEVI
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
W/O. SRI. K.S. KRISHNANARAYANA DIKSHIT
6. SMT. B.V. ARCHANA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
W/O. SRI. SANTOSH,
RESPONDENTS NOS. 4 TO 6 AT
NO.201, SRINIVASA TEMPLE STREET,
BALEPETE, BENGALURU 560 053.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH, AGA FOR R1 TO R3
SRI. SURESH.S.LOKRE, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
SRI. SHRAVAN.S.LOKRE, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
FINAL ORDER DATED 23/09/2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.56812/2015 AND ALLOW THE WRIT
PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANT AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN
AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:39504-DB
WA No. 1610 of 2024
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an
order dated 23.09.2024 ['impugned order'] passed by the learned
Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No.56812/2015 (GM-R/C).
2. The appellant had preferred the said petition impugning an
order dated 08.10.2015 passed by respondent No.2 [Additional
Deputy Commissioner] appointing respondent No.4 as Pradhana
Archaka of Sri Lakshminarasimhaswamy Temple, Balepete
Bengaluru. During the course of the writ petition, the original
petitioner [Sri K.R. Satish] expired and the writ petition was
pursued by his son - the appellant in the present appeal. The
learned Single Judge, after considering the nature of the disputes,
held that the dispute fell within the scope of clause (iii) of sub-
section (6) of Section 25-B of the Karnataka Hindu Religious
Institutions and Charitable Endowments, Act, 1997 [hereafter
referred to as 'the 1997 Act'] and therefore, in terms of Section 25-
NC: 2025:KHC:39504-DB
HC-KAR
B(6) of the Act, 1997, the disputes were required to be adjudicated
by the Deputy Commissioner. Accordingly, the learned Single
Judge has remanded the matter to the respondent No.2 [Deputy
Commissioner], to take a decision as to the rights of the rival
parties after affording them an opportunity to be heard.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has assailed the
impugned order, essentially on three fronts.
3.1. First, he submits that the Deputy Commissioner is not the
appropriate Authority to render any decision on the subject dispute.
He submits that in terms of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Hindu
Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Rules, 2002,
[hereafter 'the Rules'] the Commissioner is the appropriate
Authority, as the Temple in question is classified as a class 'A'
Temple.
3.2. Second, he submits the power of the Deputy Commissioner
to decide the questions as referred to in Sub-section (6) of Section
25-B of the 1997 Act is to be read in conjunction of Sub-section (1)
Section 25-B of the 1997 Act, which pertains to framing a scheme.
In other words, he contends that the questions referred to under
NC: 2025:KHC:39504-DB
HC-KAR
Section 25-B(6) of the 1997 Act can be adjudicated by the Deputy
Commissioner only if a scheme is framed under Section 25-B(1) of
the 1997 Act and the said questions arise in connection with the
implementation of the said scheme.
3.3. Third, he submits that the learned Single Judge has not set
aside the order dated 08.10.2015 which was impugned in the writ
petition. He submits that remanding the dispute to respondent
No.2 without setting aside the order that was the subject matter of
challenge, would be a futile exercise.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent fairly
concedes that since the matter has been placed before respondent
No.2 for a decision afresh, the order dated 08.10.2025 may be set
aside. He, however, submits that the interim directions issued by
the learned Single Judge, declining to interfere with a direction
issued in the order dated 8.10.2015, permitting the respondent
No.4 to continue performing pooja till the decision is taken by
respondent No.2, ought not to be interfered with.
5. Before proceeding to address the questions, it is relevant to
refer to Section 25(B) of the 1997 Act. The same is set out below:
NC: 2025:KHC:39504-DB
HC-KAR
"25-B. Power of the Deputy Commissioner to settle scheme
for the administration of Charitable endowments and to
decide certain other disputes.-(1) When the Deputy
Commissioner has reason to believe that in the interest of the
proper administration of Charitable endowments or a endowment
attached to any notified institution or declared institution, a
scheme shall be settled for such endowment or when not less
than five persons having interest make an application in writing
stating that in the interest of the proper administration of the
endowment, a scheme shall be settled for it, the Deputy
Commissioner shall on consultation with the Trustee or the
Committee of Management or the persons having interest and if,
after such consultation he is satisfied that is it necessary or
desirable to do so, he shall by order, settle a scheme of
administration such charitable endowment or endowment.
(2) The scheme settled under this section for the administration of
Charitable endowments may include certain provision for.-
(i) constitution of a body for the purpose of assisting in the
administration of such Charitable endowments;
(ii) the method of selection of members for such committee
from the persons having interest in such endowments;
(iii) defining the powers and duties of the committee;
(3) The Deputy Commissioner may determine the properties of the
endowment and the list of such properties shall be appended to
the scheme as a schedule.
(4) The Deputy Commissioner may at anytime after consulting
trustees or committee by order modify or cancel any scheme in
respect of an endowment which is in force and settled under sub-
section (1) or any scheme in force settled or modified by any
courts or any earlier enactments:
Provided that such cancellation or modification of a scheme in
force settled or modified earlier shall be made only subject to such
conditions and restrictions as may be imposed by the Deputy
Commissioner.
(5) If the Deputy Commissioner is satisfied that any such scheme
referred to in sub-section (1) is inconsistent with the provisions of
this Act and rules made thereunder he may, at anytime modify it in
such a manner as may be necessary to bring it into conformity
with the provisions of this Act and rules made there under.
(6) Whenever any question arises as to. -
NC: 2025:KHC:39504-DB
HC-KAR
(i) whether a particular property is the property of a notified
institutions or declared institution under the Act; or
(ii) whether any property or money is either a religious
endowment or specific endowment; or
(iii) whether any Archak or temple servant holds or held an
office in any notified institution or declared institution on
the basis of a hereditary right; or
(iv) whether any person is entitled by custom or otherwise
to any honour emolument or perquisite in any religious
institution; and what is the existing usage of a notified or
declared institution; or
(v) whether any institution or endowment is wholly or partly
of a religious or of secular character and whether any
property or money has been given wholly or partly for
religious or secular purpose; or
(vi) where any property or money has been given for the
support of an institution which is partly of a religious and
partly of a secular character or the performance of any
service or charity connected with such an institution or the
performance of a charity which is partly of a religious and
partly of a secular character or where any property or
money given is appropriated partly to religious and partly
to secular purposes, as to what portion of such property or
money shall be allocated to religious purpose; or
(vii) to accord sanction of dittam and seva list in respect of
notified institutions having gross annual income of rupees
one lakh and above but below Rupees ten lakhs; or
(viii) any dispute between the servant of a notified
institution and the committee of management.
- the Deputy Commissioner after hearing the parties concerned
shall by order decide it.
(7) Any person aggrieved by any order passed by the Deputy
Commissioner under any of the foregoing provisions, shall appeal
within one month of the date of receipt of the order to the
Commissioner.
(8) The Commissioner may after hearing the aggrieved person
and other contending parties, pass appropriate order in
accordance with law."
6. A plain reading of Sub-section (6) of Section 25-B of the
Act,1997 indicates that the same is a "stand alone provision" and
NC: 2025:KHC:39504-DB
HC-KAR
cannot be confined to disputes arising from or in connection with a
scheme framed under Section 25-B of the 1997 Act. The heading
of the Section 25-B of the 1997 Act also indicates that it contains
provisions for settlement of a scheme and for deciding certain
disputes. The language of Sub-section (6) of Section 25-B of the
1997 Act is unambiguous and it clearly empowers the Deputy
Commissioner to decide the dispute. We find no reason to depart
from the golden rule of literal interpretation. The language must be
construed to mean as it reads. The Deputy Commissioner is
appointed in terms of Section 4 of the 1997 Act.
7. We find no provision under the 1997 Act, which would
suggest that the powers to adjudicate the disputes are vested with
the Commissioner and not by the Deputy Commissioner. The said
contention runs contrary to the plain language of Sub-section (6) of
Section 25-B of the 1997 Act.
8. The reference to Rule 3 of the Rules also does not carry the
appellant's case any further. Rule 3 of the Rules reads as under:
"3. Classification of notified institutions and their prescribed
authorities.-(1) For the purpose of the Act and these rules,
the notified institutions are classified under the following
categories, namely.-
NC: 2025:KHC:39504-DB
HC-KAR
(a) Category 'A' notified institutions whose gross annual
income exceeds ¹[rupees twenty-five lakhs];
(b) Category 'B' notified institutions whose gross annual
income exceeds rupees five lakhs but does not exceed
rupees twenty-five lakhs;
(c) Category 'C' notified institutions whose gross annual
income does not exceed rupees five lakhs."
9. The said Rules does not in any manner curtail the power of
the Deputy Commissioner under sub-section (6) of Section 25-B of
the 1997 Act. We are not persuaded to accept that there is any
conflict between Rule 3 of the Rules and Section 25-B(6) of the
Act, 1997 and there is no substance in the submissions to the
aforesaid effect.
10. However, even if it is accepted - which we do not - that
there is any conflict between the language of the Rules and the
1997 Act, it is settled law that the Rules framed under the Act being
a delegated legislation cannot override the express provisions of
the main enactment.
11. In Kalpataru Agroforest Enterprises vs Union Of India:
2002 (3) SCC 692, the Supreme Court found that Rule 32 of the
Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 1989 restricted the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39504-DB
HC-KAR
scope of review as provided under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act
1987 and, in that context held as under:
"15. It is thus apparent that Rule 32 restricts the scope of
power of review vested under Section 18(3)(f) of the Act to
non-appealable orders and leaves out from its ambit orders
which are appealable under Section 23 of the Act though
such orders could be reviewed in view of Section 114 and
Rule 1 of Order 47 CPC. To the extent indicated above,
Rule 32 runs counter to Section 18(3)(f) of the Act. As Rule
32 is repugnant to the statutory provision of clause (f) of
sub-section (3) of Section 18, it is certainly bad and in no
case can it be allowed to override the specific provision of
the Act. In this view of the matter, the High Court erred in
not considering the appeal of the appellant on merits on the
ground that the review petition was not maintainable under
Rule 32."
12. It is trite law that delegated legislation cannot override or
supplant the enabling enactment. The well known text on statutory
interpretation - Justice G.P Singh Principles of Statutory
Interpretation 14th Edition - states the proposition as under:
"The power to make subordinate legislation is derived from
the enabling Act and it is fundamental that the delegate on
whom such power is conferred has to act within the limits of
the authority conferred by the Act"
13. The next question to be addressed is whether the order
dated 08.10.2015, which was impugned in the writ petition, is
required to be set aside. Considering that the dispute has been
remanded to respondent No.2 for a decision afresh, the order
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39504-DB
HC-KAR
dated 08.10.2015, which was the subject matter of challenge
before the learned Single Judge, ought to have been set aside.
Since, respondent no.2 is required to adjudicate the disputes
afresh, the said authority cannot be held bound by the findings in
the order dated 08.10.2015.
14. As noted above, the learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.4 readily accepts that respondent No.2 would be
required to ignore the order dated 08.10.2015 for the purpose of
deciding the dispute afresh. In this view, the order dated
08.10.2015 is set aside and it is clarified that respondent No.2 will
decide the subject dispute as to whether the appellant has a
hereditary right to be appointed as Pradhana Archaka,
uninfluenced by any observation made in the order dated
08.10.2015.
15. The only question that needs to be considered is the interim
arrangement till the decision is rendered by respondent No.2
pursuant to impugned order. The learned Single Judge has
directed that order dated 08.10.2015 authorising the respondent
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39504-DB
HC-KAR
No.4 to conduct the pooja will continue to be operative till the
decision is taken by respondent No.2.
16. We do not find any reason to interfere with the said interim
arrangement in the present appeal, at this stage. We note that the
learned Single Judge has directed respondent No.2 to render a
decision within a period of 60 days. Undisputedly, the order dated
08.10.2015 which was the subject matter of challenge in the writ
petition, is in favour of respondent No.4 and the learned Single
Judge has found no ground to disturb the same at the interim
stage.
17. In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed, with a
direction that respondent No.2 shall decide the subject dispute
uninfluenced by any observations made in the order dated
08.10.2015. However, we extend the time for respondent No.2 to
pass a reasoned order, in compliance with the impugned order, to
a period of 60 days from date.
18. We also clarify that all rights and contentions of the parties
are reserved. Nothing stated in the impugned order dated
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39504-DB
HC-KAR
08.10.2015 shall preclude the parties from urging their rights and
contentions before respondent No.2.
19. We dispose of the above appeal in the aforesaid terms.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
BS
