SRINIVASA RAGHAVA BHATTAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the petitioners have questioned the jurisdiction of the State government in issuing Annexure-A denying half the portion of the coconut offered by the devotees to the deities at the melkote Sri Yoganarasimha Swamy Temple and Sri Cheluva Narayanaswamy Temple.

(2.) it is not disputed that the setemples come with in the purview of the Karnataka religious and charitable institutions Act, 1957. It is seen that there is nothing in the said act which empowers or authorises the State government to pass an order prohibiting the retention of a part of the coconut offered by the devotees to the deities this religious practise between the deities and the devotees with the archaks performing the pooja and retaining a portion of the coconut is a matter between the devotees and the archaks and it is not known how without necessary power and authority conferred by the statute the State government could impose its will on the archaks to return the entire oconut to the devotees. In the absence of any statutory prohibition imposed on the archaks or in the absence of conferment of power by the statute on the state government to prohibit the archaks from retaining half portion of the coconut, it is hard to justify the exercise of power which is questioned in these writ petitions since it appears to be arbitrary and not supported by any authority of law. The court is not inclined to go into the ethical or moral justification for retention of the 50% of the coconut by the archaks, but it is only concerned with the question as to whether the impugned order sacks jurisdiction. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon a decision rendered in Archakam Seshachalam Dikshitulu v The Executive Officer, TTD. Devasthanam, tirupathi, in writ petition No. 627 of 1976 and connected cases rendered by the High Court of judicature Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad on 18-8-1977 wherein a similar view was taken to the effect that the government had acted without power. The facts of the case are similar to the facts on hand. Though the learned government pleader vehemently opposed the contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that the government was prompted to act on account of several complaints received from the devotees and that it is the duty of the State government to safeguard the interest of the devotees in the matter of return cf coconut in totality without deprivation of any part of it since the coconut belongs to the devotees, I am not inclined to subscribe to the argument of the learned government pleader appearing for the respondents. As already observed, I am unable to discover any provision of law under the act which supports State Action in this regard.

(3.) for the reasons aforestated, the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned order under annexure-a, in so far as it relates to the direction to return the entire coconut to the devotees only, is quashed. Writ petition allowed.