PRASANNA VEERANJANEYA SWAMY TRUST Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT (MUJARAI) GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has sought for quashing the notification Annexure -A dated 11.4.2012 issued by the State Government under Sections 42 and 43 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 (the Act' for short). Further, direction is also sought for quashing the order/direction Annexure -B dated 13.4.2012 by which the Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments in Karnataka has directed the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore to take over the management of the petitioner -institution with immediate effect. Sri Prasanna Veeranjaneya Swamy Temple was established in the year 1970 at Mahalakshmi lay -out, Bangalore. The idol of Lord Anjaneya is carved out on a single natural stone. Large number of devotees are worshipping the deity. The temple is situated at a height of about 30 feet above from the ground level. The idols of Lord Ganesha, Lord Rama, Goddess Sita, Goddess Lakshmi are also installed in Sri Prasanna Veeranjaneya Swamy temple premises and they are also being worshipped by the devotees. According to the petitioner, Sri Prasanna Veeranjaneya Swamy Trust is registered in the year 1981 and there are no allegations as to the mismanagement of the temple. Petitioner alleges that the temple is taken over by the State Government by notifying the said institution under the provisions of Sections 42 and 43 of the Act without notice to the petitioner. The notification dated 11.4.2012 vide Annexure -A is issued under Section - 23 read with Sections 42 and 43 of the Act. Consequently, the 2nd respondent issued direction as per Annexure -B dated 13.4.2012 to the Deputy Commissioner to take over the administration of the temple under Sections 42 and 43 of the Act. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent as per the order dated 18.4.2012 has appointed Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore as Administrator to the temple. According to the petitioner, the entire act of the State Government is contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

(2.) SRI Kamath, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that action of the 1st and 2nd respondents in taking action under Sections 42 and 43 of the Act pending approval of Rajya Dharmika Parishat is contrary to the provisions of the Act; the procedure as contemplated under Section - 43 of the Act is not followed by Respondents 1 and 2; Section 20 -A of the Act deals with powers and functions of Rajya Dharmika Parishat and as per Section 20 -A (2)(v), the State Government shall issue notification only on the recommendation and approval of the Rajya Dharmika Parishat; in the matter on hand, the State Government has exercised powers pending approval of the Rajya Dharmika Parishat; therefore the action taken by the State Government is liable to be quashed; Though there is no misappropriation and though the temple is properly administered; its income and expenditure is duly appropriated, the 1st respondent without giving an opportunity to the petitioner issued the impugned notification. The sum and substance of the case of the petitioner is that the impugned notification and order are not sustainable and the principles of natural justice is not followed and the same are issued without giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner. According to Sri Kamath, notices are issued only either by the Deputy Commissioner or by the Assistant Commissioner Mujarai Department calling upon the petitioner to file the statement of objections; that the Commissioner (2nd respondent) who is the jurisdictional authority has not issued notice to the petitioner and consequently has not given opportunity to the petitioner to file statement of objections; no enquiry is conducted pursuant to the direction of the Commissioner as contemplated under Section - 43(6) of the Act, prior to submitting of the report by the Commissioner to the State Government; Rajya Dharmika Parishat is ceased with the matter and during the subsistence of the matter before the Rajya Dharmika Parishat, the impugned notifications are passed by Respondents 1 and 2; that the matter should have been referred to Nyadhikarana as contemplated under Section 20 -A (2)(iv) of the Act. The writ petition is opposed by the learned Government Advocate as well as the advocates appearing on behalf of private respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents support the impugned order. Learned Government Advocate has made available the file maintained by the State Government -Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (2nd respondent).

(3.) THE submission of Sri Kamath, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the matter should have been referred to Nyadhikarana cannot be accepted. Provisions of Section 20 -A of the Act deal with the powers and functions of the Rajya Dharmika Parishat. Under Section 20 -A (2)(iv) the Rajya Dharmika Parishat for the purpose of resolving any dispute as provided under section 20 -A, may constitute Nyayadhikarana with the Judicial Member of the Parishat and the Commissioner as its members. In the matter on hand, there is no dispute which arises under Section 20 -A of the Act and consequently, there is no need to constitute Nyayadhikarana at all.