KRISHNAPPA S T Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of he Constitution, the petitioners have sought for quashing the order dated 11-5-1984 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Madhugiri Sub Division, Madhugiri, (Respondent-2) in No. DVS. CR. 129/83-84 (Annexurc-A). By the said order, the 2nd respondent has appointed respondents Nos. 4 to 12 as Dharmadarshis of the temple known as "Sree Kariyamma Devaru at Sorekunte. Sira Taluk. The 4th respondent is appointed as Convenor of the said Committee of Dharmadarshis. Though several contentions are raised in the petition including the contention relating to the suitability of the respondents 4 to 12 to function as Dharmadarshis of the temple. Sri Hanumanthaiah, learned Counsel for the petitioners, has confined the petition to only one contention viz., that the 2nd respondent is not competent to appoint Dharmadarshis to the Muzrai Institution in question; therefore, it is not necessary to go into other contentions including the contention relating to the suitability of respondents 4 to 12 for being appointed as Dharmadarshis of the temple in question.

(2.) The contention regarding the competency of the 2nd respondent to appoint Dharmadarshis to the temple in question, is based on the provisions contained in Section 6 of the Mysore Religious and Charitable Institutions Regulation, 1927 (for short, the 'Regulation'), which is applicable to the temple in question and is in operation in the Old Mysore area; and also Rule 4 of the Rules framed thereunder. The contention is that Section 6 of the Regulation empowers the State Government to delegate the power of appointing Dharmadarshis either to the Muzrai Commissioner or to the Deputy Commissioner and not to the Assistant Commissioner; therefore the notification dated 21st April, 1941 bearing No. 2567-78-Muz. 284-49. in so far it empowers the Assistant Commissioner of the Sub-Division to exercise the power of appointment of Dharmadarshis to the Muzrai Institutions within his jurisdiction, is ultra vires the power of the State Government and as such, it is null and void and cannot at all be enforced.

(3.) On the contrary, it is contended by Sri M.R. Achar, learned Government Advocate, that Section 5 of the Regulation, read with sub-section (2) of Sec. 8 of the Mysore Land Revenue Code, which was in force at the relevant point of time i.e.. on 21-4-1941 when the aforesaid notification was issued, did enable the State Government to empower the Assistant Commissioner to exercise the power of the Deputy Commissioner to appoint Dharmadarshis to the Muzrai Institutions situated within his jurisdiction. It may also be noticed here that sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Mysore Land Revenue Code, is similar to sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. 1964.