R. HARISH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner No.1 is the son and Petitioner No.2 is the widow of one Mr. Rangaswamy who met his Maker on 19/4/2020. They are knocking at the doors of writ court seeking quashment of 2nd Respondent-Commissioner's order dtd. 12/3/2021, a copy whereof avails at Annexure-C whereby he has favoured appeal of the private respondents and thereby set aside the Deputy Commissioner's order dtd. 24/10/2017. The operative portion of the order reads as under: <IMG>JUDGEMENT_81_LAWS(KAR)8_2023_1.jpg</IMG>

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that there is no due application of mind by the Commissioner to the argued case of his clients in defense of the Deputy Commissioner's order and in resistance of the appeal against the same; the Commissioner has misconstrued the order dtd. 19/2/2007 made by the Assistant Commissioner. After service of notice, the official respondents are represented by the learned AGA and the private respondents are represented by their private counsel. The private respondents have filed their Statement of Objections opposing the petition. Their counsel makes submission in justification 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 declines indulgence in the matter inasmuch as the Commissioner being the statutory authority under the provisions of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowment Act, 1997. This Court has to bear in mind that where a statutory/Tribunal makes an order in the admitted jurisdiction, the challenge lies only under Article 227 of the Constitution which is too restrictive, Article 227 having been ornamentally employed in the writ petition. The finding of facts howsoever erroneous cannot be the ground for a deeper examination of the decision of statutory authorities, unless they go to very root of the matter vide SADHANA LODH vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., LTD, (2003) 3 SCC 524.