V RAMAKRISHNA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ appeals are filed against the order of the learned Single Judge passed in W. P. Nos. 23803 to 29809 of 2002 (GM), dated 28-11-2002.

(2.) IT is stated that the appellants-petitioners 1 and 2 were appointed as Trustees of Sri Someswara swamy Temple, Ulsoor, Bangalore, for a period of three years vide order dated 25-8-2001 (Annexure-A ). One C. Narayanappa filed Writ Petition No. 31827 of 2001 as his nomination had been rejected, and got an interim order. However, on 7-3-2002 the writ petition was dismissed vide Annexure-B as having become infructuous as the three years period of appointment of petitioner-Narayanappa with effect from 12-2-1999 had come to an end. Thereafter the 2nd respondent issued an order (Annexure-C) on 8-3-2002 directing the concerned officer to implement the order dated 25-8-2001. But, the same could not be given effect to on account of the order dated 30-4-2002 (Annexure-D) passed by 2nd respondent stating that the order dated 25-8-2001 had been cancelled as per the directions of the Minister of State of Endowments as per his note. The same was challenged by seven persons in W. P. Nos. 23803 to 23809 of 2002, which were dismissed as stated. Hence, these appeals have been filed by petitioners 1 and 2 only.

(3.) THE learned Counsel appearing for the appellants C. Dinakar, submits that the learned Single judge has erred in not interfering with the order passed by the 2nd respondent merely on the representation made by the M. L. A. and on the basis of a note of the State Minister for Muzrai institutions. He submits that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the facts properly and the order at Annexure-D is liable to be set aside as no notice or opportunity was given nor the procedure for setting aside the order dated 25-8-2001 has been followed. He also submits that the learned Single Judge has not considered the Karnataka Government Transaction of Business rules in the proper perspective and has erred in holding that the petitioners have no vested right to challenge the order.