IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED was THE 9?" DAV OF DECEMBER,
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUsT'3:CE MOHA!§I sH.4NTAmjsE:;V:.J%aAgO'x
wmrr PETITION NOS.32i48~$214-?'/2OiO{GI§1~'R}Lf3T'O'
BETWEEN:
1. S.R.Devaraju
Aged 48 years _
Convener 1
Sri Sakafeshpura Sw~ar.wITem«ple E ""
Sakalesh;)gu''a~.s_V
R/at.S.P.4RO,ad;fS.akafesnpura fg
Hassan ::Dist.'*~.V
2. S.N,.Avi_nas"n:g . .
Ag ed abc_>u't 385/ea'r's_. '
Secretaryse C ,
Sri Saka'i«esnpVur-a S-wamy Temple
S;~n<'ai.eshpu'-raV '
s_R)':at:.S~P.eRoad"" ..... .. i~c~:§'Osiz_;«L1.%§:§M.r>ataI, Adv.,)
T_AND':
:f_'v'.1.i. The Commissioner
' _ 'Hindu Religious Institutions and
Charitable Endowments
Chamarajpete
Bangaiore
2. The Presiding Officer
Department of Revenue (Muzrai)
Sakaleshpura
3. The Deputy Commissioner
Hassan District
Hassan
4. The Tahsildar
Sakaleshpura Taluip0NDENTS
(By Sri R.Devdas, AGA). T
These '%ivrit§ii'petitiotns;_are filed' u'ri'd'er Articles 226 and
227 of the '_<4Co'-n's_titu't.ie.,n"~. of 'I.nd_i.3 praying to quash
Government, Order dated'-l.12.'7';20;§_O, Bangaiore passed by
R2 <:ert'iFied_b1y the §2.4'vide Annrsxu re--B to the writ petition,
etc. ' .. _ '
These writ' coming on for preliminary
hearing, this day the'._CoiJ~rt made the fol|owing:~
"--'oRDER .....
I:_.'e.alr%ied"_j,Government Advocate is directed to
take no~t.i'Ce..~o;n behaif of respondents.
._ H “rd. V)
2. By the impugned order, the second
respondent has reconstituted Sri Sakaleshpura».Svv_a.my
Temple Development Committee
Committee). In the said process,.._the.’_’narn’es»’of
petitioners are deieted frontier’ o§Crii;_:i_VAi”n;;vi
Development Committee M:e’mbers,V__ap,prov’e:d””bv the”?
first respondent.
3. The resiiiondent
has passed;~thetVL:i>rde_r approving Sri
Saka lesh it ;i”emp|e Deveiopment
jurisdictionai Deputy
of 15 members are found
in ;the. said_”C’om”mittee. The names of these
at Si.Nos.10 and 5 respectiveiy.
was appointed as Secretary of the
Corn.n’iVittee, whereas the first petitioner was the
“i~*ie.mher of the Committee. The term of the said
ifé
-4-
Committee is for three years. Three years’ term will
expire only on 24.11.2012.
4. When the facts stood thus,
respondent has passed the ordenaés ;;er”AnfvneStu’re~B,
dated 12.7.2010 reconstituting’i«.th*e-‘Corrsnfiittee
12.7.2010. The names Vof…f’these.”pet’lriC>’i}e’r.s'””d’iti: not”?
find place in the re’c’onV.stit’s;:..t.ed ‘Development
Committee.
5. Thgg, the impugned
order is has written a
letterartogv 5.1.2010 suggesting
certain”names-._to–é?A’–bre’coVh<stituting the Committee and
acceprting .th»e_"siaid'V' recommendation made by the
forn:e_E"0i${li;A«,.._vthe Committee is reconstituted. No other
r.e'e.son"i's_~V_.a_ssjg'hed in the impugned order.
.F'ro;m the above, Et Es clear that absolutely no
allegations are found against these petitioners. The
1/"
Committees constituted by the competent authority
should not have been changed without adediuate
reason. The Committees cannot be
whims and fancies of any _pa.rticu.i’ar’vV’4″o’_g.V”;3o’_i_§l;iQ.a|””
powerful person. Such an””4.VacAtiioin
deprecated and accordingjlyp» sarrae V-._:devprec’ated.””
Since this Court findrS..fihat~”the’Vc_:i:nciV§3r.I,i_gned”order is as a
result of political the second
respondent,§~vtheVL:V1impiugnelzi be sustained.
“order at An nexure~E3,
datecl in so far as it
relates ‘ e a re conce rn ed .
“V’.frit’4pe’t.it:;’onsarehallowed accordingly.
….. .. Sd/3
JUDGE