SRIKANTA DATTA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is aggrieved of the action of the respondent-Governemnt in taking over the management and maintenance of Palace Muzrai Temples under G. O. R. D. 54-MLI-72 dated 28-9-1974 under S. 7 of the erstwhile Mysore Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1927 (in short called Act of 1927) by vesting the management in a Committee constituted in the impugned order has filed this writ petition seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned Government order Annexure 'a' dated 28-9-1974 and subsequent orders of renewals and further issuance of a writ of mandamus or appropriate direction to the respondents 4 and 5 to hand over the physical possession of all the Palace Muzrai Temples and also the management records, jewellary etc. , of these temples situate in and around Palace, and, also at Chamundi Hills, forthwith to the petitioner for the maintenance and management and further to declare that the petitioner is the shebait of these Palace Muzrai Temples having his hereditary right to maintain and administer them urging various facts and legal contentions.

(2.) CERTAIN relevant and necessary facts and legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties are stated as hereunder for the purpose of appreciating and considering the rival contentions by the learned counsel on behalf of the parties :-

(3.) GOVERNMENT orders at Annexure 'c' dated 27-10-1908, Annexure ' D' dated 20-1-1909 and Annexure ' E' dated 14-4-1920 came under "existing law" within the meaning of Art. 372 (1) of the Constitution of India. The administrative control of the institutions was transferred to Muzrai Department, the Palace Controller being placed in immedaite charge and management of the institutions. From 1908 onwards erstwhile Maharaja have exercised exclusive administrative and managerial powers with regard to the said Temples. The said Temples were included in the 1950 agreement with the erstwhile Maharaja's Family by the Union of India, and the rationale for such inclusion is that these temples according to Hindu law (dedicated by the erstwhile Maharajas) had become the property of the idol or deity i. e. , "debutter property. " Therefore, it is contended that the erstwhile Maharajas were the "shebaits" since generations. The further contention is that shebait status vested by the erstwhile Maharaja of Mysore continued after 26-1-1950 thereby giving the same status to the Maharajas. It is contended that 26th Amendment to the Constitution, the Government of India issued a Memo duly signed by the Joint Secretary to Government of India stating that the properties which were recognised as private properties of the Rulers in accordance with the settlement with them will continue to remain with them vide its order dated 26-10-1972. The legal contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is taking over the temples vide impugned order at Annexure 'a' is bad even according to S. 7 of the Act, 1927 in lieu of Dharmadarsis and Nazarine appointed u/s. 6 of the Act. Appointment of Committee to Muzrai Institutions does not empower to provide for authority of the State Govt. to take over Palace Muzrai Temples, under an executive order vide Annexure 'a' dated 28-9-1974 by virtue of Government orders 1908, 1909 and 1920 vide Annexures 'c,' ' D, ' and ' E, ' ' D, ' (sic ). Temples have been specifically removed from the purview of the Act, 1927. Therefore, it is contended that the Government has no power to take these temples, which are no longer Muzrai Institutions, as they were under three Government orders. In law, the temples were kept beyond the Government's power, but by virtue of Government order dated 28-9-1974 constituted a Committee for the management of temples belonging to the Palace. It is further contended that the two Government orders dated 20-1-1909 and 14-4-1920 of the Government of his Highness, the Maharaja of Mysore, the temples in question were directed to be removed from the purview of the Muzrai Department and were placed under the control of the Palace Department. Therefore, there is no Muzrai Institutions. Section 7 of the Act provides for appointment of Committee to Muzrai Institutions and does not empower or provide for authority to take over Palace Muzrai Temples, under an executive order i. e. , by passing the impugned order dated 28-9-1974 at Annexure ' A' and further under the provisions of the Act of 1927 there is no document to indicate the previous orders were superseded and regarded as Muzrai Institutions. The status of the Temples continued in terms of the Government orders dated 27-9-1908, 20-1-1909 and 14-4-1920. Those orders constitute the existing law within the meaning of Art. 372 of the Constitution. As a result, after 26-1-1950, the above said Government orders could not have been repealed or modified by the executive order of the respondent-Government.