VIDYAPRASANNA THEERTHA SWAMIJI Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Petition is filed by the Pontiff of Mutt in question under Article 226 & 227 of Constitution of India seeks to lay a challenge to the Deputy Commissioner's order dtd. 7/8/2018, whereby his claim u/s under Sec. 50 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997, essentially for the restoration of the privilege and reiteration of the custom of the Mutt has been negatived. Learned counsel for Petitioner drawing attention of the Court to Article 25 & 26 of the Constitution, as interpreted by the Apex Court in THE COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS, MADRAS, vs. Sri LAKSHMINDRA THEERTHA SWAMIAR AIR 1954 SC 282, vehemently contends that there had been a long standing custom that the Pontiff of the Mutt would perform Shri Narasimha Jayanti, in Shri Kuke Subramania Temple and for no reason, that ceremonial performance has been discontinued. There is a wealth of material like Court orders and records which vouch the claim of petitioner and this having not been properly examined, impugned order has been made and therefore, the same infected with a legal infirmity of a great magnitude is liable to be invalidated.

(2.) Learned HCGP appearing for the official Respondents and the learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the temple, oppose the petition making submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been structured. Learned Sr. Advocate adds that, the Petitioner had made a similar claim before the Rajya Dharmika Parishath and that his client has filed the objections on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and that, the petitioner should approach the Regular Civil Court for working out grievance of the kind.

(3.) At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner in all fairness submits that his client has already instituted a civil suit after seeing objections filed by the Respondent Temple, and therefore, if a direction for its early trial and disposal is issued, that would do justice to one and all. He also rightly puts a caveat that, consistent with stand taken by the Respondent - Temple both before this Court and before the Rajya Dharmika Parishath, it should be barred from taking up the contention of lack of jurisdiction, before the Civil Court. In reply, learned Sr. Advocate agrees with the same, in all fairness but stipulates that the claim before the Rajya Dharmika Parishath to the extent comprised in the civil suit, be treated as having become infructuous. There is force in the submission of both the sides which are complimentary to each other.