SAHASRA LINGESHWARA TEMPLE REP Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HINDU temples/trustees of temples/archaks and others of Karnataka ace before us aggrieved by the Judgment of this Court dated 9. 9. 2005 passed in W. P. Nos. 31937/2003 and connected matters in these appeals.

(2.) IT is unnecessary for us to refer to the facts in each one of the cases. The State Government in terms of the powers conferred on then has chosen to enact a law by name the Karnataka Hindu religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 and the Rules framed thereunder. The said Act in terms of the statement of objects and reasons was enacted in the light of a longstanding public demand to bring about a uniform law to provide for the regulation of all charitable Endowments and Hindu Religious Institution in the State, which are now regulated under different enactments having local application in different parts of the State. The said Act was brought into force with effect from in terms of the notification. The Act is applicable to hindu Religious Institution and Charitable Endowment but shall not apply to a math or temple attached thereto, to any Hindu religious institution or charitable endowment founded, organised, run or managed by Hindu religious denomination.

(3.) THERE are several chapters providing for various contingencies in the matter. Aggrieved by the said act, several teraples/trustees/arohaks etc. , filed a bunch of Writ Petitions in this Court questioning the Constitutional validity of the said Act. Some of the petitioners also challenged the notification issued under the Act with regard to the governing of the temples in terms of the notification. Matter was heard by a learned Single Judge of this Court. Detailed arguments were advanced. After hearing, the learned single Judge in his order dated 9. 9. 2005 held that the Act is valid and constitutional. Learned Judge reserved liberty to the petitioners who are aggrieved by the inclusion in the notification to approach the authorities under the Act, if so advised. The learned Judge ruled that if any complaints are filed, the authorities are to hold enquiries with opportunity and thereafter pass orders in accordance with law. This order is challenged by the petitioners in these appeals.