COMMISSIONER FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS IN KARNATAKA BANGALORE Vs. JANARDHANA AND MAHAKALI TEMPLES AMBALAPADI UDUPI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal, the appellants have called in question the correctness of the order dated 14th October, 2004 made in Writ Petition No. 31057 of 2004 by the learned Single Judge. In the impugned order, the learned single Judge has quashed the communication dated 11th May, 2004, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-A to the writ petition. In annexure-A, the 1st appellant has rejected the request of the respondent-temple to disburse the surplus amounts of the temple to various institutions. The learned Single Judge has quashed the impugned order primarily on the ground that on an earlier occasion having permitted similar donations being made to various institutions, the 1st appellant was not justified in passing the impugned order.

(2.) SRI Ramanjaneya Gowda, learned Additional Government advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that in the light of the provisions contained in the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and charitable Endowments Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 'the New act'), the 1st appellant was justified in passing the impugned order annexure-A. It is his submission that the donations permitted by the 1st appellant referred to by the learned Single Judge in his order relates to the period prior to coming into force of the New Act.

(3.) HOWEVER, Sri Padubidri Raghavendra Rao, learned Counsel for the respondent while strongly supporting the impugned order submitted that since the amounts are received by the respondent-temple from the members of the public, the respondent-temple must be allowed to disburse the said amount for the benefit of public at large. In other words, it is his submission, if other charitable or religious institutions who are discharging public duty for the benefit of the public come forward seeking donations from the respondent-temple, keeping in mind the larger public interest and the nature of activities that are being carried out by such institutions, if the respondent-temple is satisfied that the said institutions have been established either for charitable or religious purposes and are carrying on the objects for which they came to be established, the respondent-temple must be allowed to disburse the amount collected by it from the members of public for the good of the public by releasing the said amount in favour of such institutions. It is his submission that by means of a general order it is not permissible for the 1st appellant to reject the request made by the respondent to disburse the amount to various charitable and religious institutions. Elaborating his submission, the learned Counsel pointed out that if the amounts are required for the purpose of a hospital or for the purpose of financing for mid-day meal to the school children or for any educational purposes or such other similar charitable or religious purposes, the respondent-temple must be permitted to disburse the amount, however, subject to approval of the appellants.