SANATH KUMAR SHETTY Vs. KARNATAKA RAJYA DHARMIKA PARISHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner claiming to be a hereditary trustee by succession to the temple in question, is complaining in writ jurisdiction against the Resolution dtd. 21/1/2020 vide Agenda No.17 passed by the 1st respondent-Rajya Dharmika Parishat at Annexure-AA, whereby the said issue has been referred for statutory adjudication. The impugned part of the resolution reads as under:

(2.) After service of notice, the 1st respondent-Parishat and the 7th respondent-Nyayadhikarana have entered appearance through their Panel Counsel; the 2nd respondent-Commissioner for Hindu Religious Institutions and the 3rd respondent-State are represented by the learned AGA; respondent Nos.4 and 5 are ably represented by their private advocate; notice to 8th respondent who happened to be the incumbent of the office of the 2nd respondent-Commissioner, was dispensed with vide order dtd. 14/10/2020. The contesting parties i.e., the respondent Nos.4 and 5 have filed their Statement of Objections on 21/1/2022. The petition is resisted with submissions made in support of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been constructed.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons: