MARIKAMBA DEVASTHANAGALA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged the proceedings of the respondent No.2 which culminated in an order bearing No.[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] dtd. 12/4/2016 declaring the petitioner No.1 as a declared institution under Ss. 42 and 43 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 (henceforth referred to as 'the Act, 1997').

(2.) The petitioners claim that Shree Marikamba Temple, Sagar Town, (henceforth referred to as 'the Temple') is an ancient Temple and is represented by an Executive Committee comprised of 21 members and 15 sub-committees which include a sub-committee for conducting jatra / fair which will be conducted once in three years. This fair is being conducted in the temple for more than 100 years by the Executive Committee as well as the jatra sub-committee. The petitioners claim that the accounts of the Temple are duly audited for the period 1/7/1989 to 31/3/2014 and no irregularities or any misappropriation was detected. When things stood thus, the respondent No.3 issued a notice dtd. 7/10/2013 calling upon the petitioner No.1 to show cause regarding the allegations made by respondent No.4 in his report that the Committee had failed to produce the accounts of the jatra for the period 2001-2009 and why action should not be initiated under Sec. 42 of the Act, 1997. The petitioners contend that in response to the said notice, the petitioner No.1 submitted a reply to the respondent No.3 on 28/10/2013 contending inter alia that the audit for the period 2007 to 2013 was completed and the statement of assets and liabilities was yet to be finalized. Therefore, he sought two months time to furnish all the documents. Petitioner No.2 informed the respondent No.3 that the members of the Committee had taken charge five months prior to the date of the show cause notice and therefore, they were handicapped to readily produce the documents. The petitioners contend that the respondent No.3 failed to grant the time as sought for or as contemplated under Sec. 43(1) of the Act, 1997. The petitioner No.2 addressed the letter dtd. 6/1/2014 to the respondent No.5 stating that accounts were given to the Auditor for the purpose of auditing and as the fair for the year 2014 was around the corner, sought for three months after the fair was over, to submit audited accounts as well as the statement of assets and liabilities. The petitioner No.1 addressed a letter dtd. 10/6/2014 to the respondent No.6 enclosing therewith the assets and liabilities statement and accounts of the fair. The petitioners contend that though the respondent No.3 had granted time, the respondent No.5 issued a final notice dtd. 13/10/2014 calling upon the petitioner No.1 to submit the accounts within seven days failing which action would be initiated under the Act, 1997. The petitioners further contend that the petitioner No.2 addressed a letter dtd. 13/11/2014 to the respondent No.5 enclosing therewith audited reports and also the accounts of the jatra for the period 18/2/2014 to 26/2/2014. Nonetheless, the respondent No.2 without considering the documents produced by the petitioner, passed an order dtd. 12/4/2016 applying the provisions of Ss. 42 and 43 of the Act, 1997 to the Temple and handed it over to the department of Muzrai. The petitioners claim that though the aforesaid order was passed on 12/4/2016, the same is not communicated to the petitioners and that the petitioners came to know of it only when it was published in the local newspaper in the second week of April 2016. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order dtd. 12/4/2016, have filed this writ petition.

(3.) The writ petition is opposed by the respondent - State. It is contended that Shree Marikamba temple is a Public Temple. It is alleged that there is no proper management of Temple and since several years, the general public had formed a Committee to perform annual fairs by collecting donations from the devotees and the public at large. It is contended that one Sri A.D. Subramanya, a devotee of the Temple had filed a complaint with the respondent No.4 alleging that the Committee constituted to perform the annual fair was misusing the funds collected from the general public. It was alleged that the Committee was not keeping any accounts of the money collected nor was there any audit of the amount collected and spent. It is alleged that the money collected was not used for the development of the Temple or for improving the infrastructure therein. Based on this complaint, notices dtd. 21/4/2011 and 14/9/2011 were issued to the Committee to submit accounts. The petitioners who claimed to be the President and the Secretary of the Committee failed to submit the books of accounts but orally requested the official respondents for time on the ground that the books were submitted to the Auditor and that they would submit the same soon after the Auditor returned them. It is claimed that the petitioners never submitted any accounts to the respondents in spite of several notices. The respondent No.5 therefore issued a notice dtd. 7/10/2013 to the petitioner No.1 under Sec. 43 of the Act, 1997 to the Committee to show cause as to why the Temple should not be taken over by the State Government and be handed over to the Department of Muzrai. Even after receipt of the said notice, the petitioners failed to submit any objections. Therefore, the respondents after complying with the procedure contemplated under the Act, 1997 passed the impugned order dtd. 12/4/2016 taking over the administration of the temple and handing it over to the Department of Muzrai. They contended that the impugned order is just and proper and no interference is warranted. It is further contended that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioners are having alternative remedy under Sec. 20A(1)(b) of the Act, 1997 before the Rajya Dharmika Parishat. It is also alleged that the petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands as they have suppressed the fact that a member of the Managing Committed had filed O.S Nos.3/1966, 5/2017 and 405/1999 regarding the mismanagement of the funds of the Temple and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any reliefs.