IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 19111 DAY OF NOVEMBER
PRESENT xW »'}
THE HONBLE MR.JUsIjec.E_N.KI--JMAf€'.';A. '-
AND : /. . . . _
THE HON'BLE MR.(1Us'fie'E.,§.N;'sAi"1',ANAi§gx;§'mA\i\;
WRIT APPEAL N0.41_11:9f-@0054 (G:\.d~-R:/ic)
BETWEEN:
1. Sri.Mug?.~0mc.VSharfiarajsi..'Heg€ie'; V' V H V
S / 0 M0:1a[;§)a._V_}Iegd_e, '
Aged 62_.y'rs§', b _ V.
R/9 Nea1*'C:Qrpcr_atiO1§
VA1eV()'0r:;'A1eV?::Gr, 'Udupi, ' ' "
V'Dist:.U(1'u;)i.,_ ' . '
2. S1*1..Ra}eev:L_A1v'a "-- __
S / 0 Rsheenappa; Aliva
A. -- Aged ab_Qut:.E}7 yrs.;
.» R'/0 Keerihi Tiies,
1%'/1ad'i,.. Cherkeitii Village.
_Ud.u.p'1*-Tq., 8: Dist,
.3.' ; VSfi',~K.Pitishnaraya Patil,
' V S./.0' Paul
Age::1'62 yrs.,
~~ R,{o Kannaru Nayakarajeddu
Cherkadl Village,
Udupl Taluk & Dist,
Smt.Suga.ndhiShe<.1thy
5 W/0 Ratnakara Shetty "
- 2 -
Aged about 42 yrs.,
Kedlabailu, Cherkadi village,
Udupi Taluk 8: Dist.,
5. Sri.Kitta.ppa Ameen,
S/o Manjiinath Ameen,
Aged about 42 yrs.,
Kannaru, Cherkadi village,
Udupi Taluk & Dist.
6. Sri.Shankar Naika _, _
S/o Koraga naika V. ''
Aged about 37 yrs.,
Kannaru, Kodi
Cherkadi viilage, .._V V * _
Udupi Taluk & I)ist., " Appeliarits
(by Sri.Padubid;:'i Ragh,aw,;ndra_i'Ra¢',,j'Adv;
AND: '
1 . Venkatesh.V1'J1_an_ja' _ " - _. _
S 1 o iate Puttamaxi Marga
Aged about=55' yi"s.§'*- '
R/0 K:;mI1aru._, Cheriiadi Village 81 Post,
' ' Udupi '
" District Udi1pi.,..i *
t' = V TAssistant---Commissioner,
_ «Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Uduf)i'f_ district,
[,jF_dt.1pi;'
_. HQ. " _.
Commissioner,
' Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Udupi district,
Udupi.
4. The Endowment Commissioner,
-3.
.
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Chamarajapete.
5. State of Karnataka
Replay its Secretary,
Dept.of Endowment,
M.S.Building,
Bangalore 560 001. Res.po.hdehtS ,_ A’
(by Sri.K.Raghupathy for SI’i.Ashok Hamahalli, Adv’ {gr R1)’
This appeal is filed u/ S 4 of the
Act praying to set aside the order’ passed i1′.«tiRfIitp.p’€tiT,l0n.
N0.9080/2004 dated 30.6.2004? V * ‘
This appeal coming londrfor Heafiiig this day,
N.Kumar J., delivered the followi.r1g:.__
Tiiis appe.aL.is’lpfefe1=red -‘by the impleading applicants
in the the order passed by the
1eaifi;1edi..single’ who has allowed the writ petition
withoutlldeohsidering their claim for irripleadment and without
eonsideritzg their case, as the order setting aside the
cor1stit1_;tiot1:”‘of the Committee affects these appellants.
” 2. Kannaru Sri.Durga Parameshwari Temple situated
Cherkadi village is an ancient temple. It is a notified
writ petition, these appellants filed irnpieading appiieatioii
and wanted to contest the matter. However, thej”iea;tned
singie judge without considering their ~
appiication, without considering tiieiirease it ”
the order setting aside the o’rde:;}”‘
Commissioner and remandirigvitiktie
fresh consideration in aecordaiV1_oe:A’arithV”lave.andvltodecide the
Ciuestion whether the vlt’-*’«..t:i”3Si”‘Ai/’3t\I1?{“:t’.r1″t.’iti$githfleditaly tmstee
or not and whether he”‘cot.iidV as hereditary
trustee tempie. Aggrieved
by the sarI1e”»th:e _:’bdefoi’eVthis court.
iearned Counsel for the parties.
The jeffeet the ‘o.rder”.passed by the learned single judge is,
th’§;.j.jjAc:joi?i’k.rnit1,ee rfi’anagen1e:nt consisting of the appefiants
in the proceedings initiated by the 15’
E-fzhalleiiging the same he did not array them as
pa1ties€’_AE\ien then the Assistant Comrnissioner rejected the
as Again the said order was challenged before this
i Court. They were not made as parties. On coming to know
of the same, they flied an application to implead themselves\l/
as parties. As the order passed and to be now passed by the
learned single judge affects their interest they oughtto
been impleaded as parties by the 15* _
Even otherwise, when they wanted; yto_’come”
learned single judge ought to have:-.yallo’wed
and heard them before passisigthe
learned single judge affects has been
passed without were seeking an
audience before the order of
the learned :be”fsustajned. Hence, we
pass the ‘ if
1’
ii. iriiptignedfforder passed by the learned single
is set aside.
matter is remitted back to the learned
judge. As we are allowing the impleading
if ii’ application filed before him, the appellants shall be
arrayed as respondents in the writ petition and
\/
after hearing all the parties, the writ petition may
be decided on merits and in accordance with
4) The parties to bear their own costs.