IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 9"' DAY OF FEBRUARY 20
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR. JUs'r1cE:aAJ1'r'J.eU'1§ee;iArf
WRIT PETITION No.22722O;2e05(G1x»q41§/geefa;
BE IWEEN :
1. Sri.Vedanta Deshika' '1.Trust',"W *
Bangalore, _ g R - AA
Represented by its Seer-etary,'
Sri.K.R.MukL1;nda, 62"ye~ai's, "
S/ 0.K.L.Ra;'1'ga'r1.lyengar; ' A' i_
No.683, jI3ar1ei§aj';an3ra?_,
60 feet R-:_)Vad;_,"BENEL O
4"" S_ta.ge_. Ra} a:7a]eswar111agar,
Bangalore »
2. sr1.K;R.Mukunc:;;,v_
szyearsgaaa R
S/,a..K.L.Ranga.Iye1iga'r,
]\§e.:,68Oi';_ 'Parichajanya',
O . 60 fee: Road, BEML Layout,
' . "éél? C-ftager Raj arajeswarinagar,
" vBai1ga}.Qre% E360 O98. ...PET1TIONERS
{By O
"State of Karnataka.
; By its Secretary,
7 To the Muzurai Department,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore ~ 560 001.
t
¥J
. The Commissioner for Religious
& Charitable Endowments in
Karnataka, Aluru Venkatarao Road,
Chamarajpet, Banga1ore»--5€50 018.
. The Deputy Commissioner.
Hassan District, Hassan:573 2_O.1..,.__
. The Assistant Commissioner and ' '
Endowment Officer. C'
Hassan Subwdivision,
Hassan:573 201.
. The Muzrai 0fficeran'd,
Tahsildar, Hassan Taligk, T'
Hassan:573 2.01. _ 2
. Sri.Lakshnfi_iJ§an_ar.(1hai1a
Swamy5Fen1"p.1e'."'éo ., _ V
Representedits _ * A' A A
Con'v'en'er. Co'in'mi't¥:ee of 'T
Dharmadarsh-is,""By1«ah'a11i, I
Salagamez :3.7.3C'2«]_9.»._.
HassanTa1uk; H'asTsa11_. '
. S;§'i.K;7['.Pat1:aohViran1ar1.
..... ..
. 'vS/'o_,1a.te.S;../Tirumalachar.
T C .Ri'eat"«No-..25:'1,
_ "T,u1s'1das__Ra1hdas Matt Road.
' Frazer Town,
sanggme W 560 005.
J. I S_ri.H.R.Sr1'dhara.
r _4Q years.
S'/o.Lat.e H.T.Ramaswamy Eyengar,
Residing at: Jayalakshmi Nllaya,
2"" Cross. 4"' Main.Viveknagar,
Bangalore »» 560 047. ...RESPONDENTS
J; 3 _
This writ. petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash
the order dated 15.09.2005 vide Annexure "A' by Rl ~
State of Karnataka.
This writ petition having been heard and reserved
coming on for pronouncement of orders, this day;.._'t1he
Court made the following: "
ORDER
The 15* petitioner is the
They are questioning theVorder”-passedlptylbyithe
respondent permitting the the
precincts of Sri.Laksla:rt;i’ Temple
situated at’ Awl93y1a1e{alli_T”t{vi’l1age’,W”Hassan Taluk. Hassan.
The said orderV”isTf.assai»l.ed on Various grounds. To
appreciate the c’o.ntroversy in question, it is necessary to
T'”:1ar’rate”thenfactualllloackground of the case.
is a temple. called Sri.Lakshmi
Janlardhanéa Swamy Temple. The Presiding Deity of the
saidteniple is Sri Lakshmi Janardhanaswamy, which is
T the Kuladeyatha’ or ‘Family Deity’ of large number of
people of the village and also of neighbouring villages.
According to the petitioners, the devotees of the temple
are spread over through the State and”
neighbouring States. The History of the H
the followers of the Scholar ”
advented the philosophy of
main devotees of the t.enipie_V:”and
large numbers. The Deity ilianardhana
Swamy is installed the sanctum
sanctorum i of Nammalvar.
Bhagavan Desikar and
“”i’he”§said Deities are being
worshiippled Since the date the
temple was ‘coi’}:.st17ucted, the customs and rituals
ll pret/:al.€nt”i-are Vadagalai Sampradaya prescribed
swaniy. follower of Vedanta
Desika:r~. _”j..–As per sampradaya. there is no religious
xsganetion for installation of any new idol in this temple.
it not in dispute that the temple in question being a
-dlviuzrai Temple, the provisions of the l\/iysore Religious
and Charitable institutions Act, 1927′ were applicable.
/%
indeed the said enactment was repealed pursuant to
Hiridu Religious lnst.itutions and Charitable
Endowments Act, 1997 and the Rules made t,hereun{:leri
it is to be noticed that the vires of the said
was questioned before this Court. A
this Court has held that the
contrary to the Const.itution»:and ltitusit
The matter is now pending the
the APEX COUW has which
would necessar}’.1y_ mean. force as of
now. V _ .
3.vVV’Unrl_ier Mysore Religious and
Charitable l”ast.’itutior1–s ‘Plot, the provisions which are
‘ll'”Inadel°applieablelto””respondent No.6 — temple are that
»C’o_nt::olli11g Authority in all the matters
oonrtyeeteyd. the Muzrai institutions as per Section 3
‘””~.__l’uests wi’it},h the Government. The Muzrai Commissioner
T was_ having control in respect of all or any particular
of Religious and Charitable Institutions in the
V State and the Deputy Commissioner of the District was %
/
_/./
_5,
the immediate controlling authority in respect. of all the
Muzrai Institutions in the District. Till the
the affairs of the temple were running
however. dispute has arisen in August 199′?
as a group of people claiming to
Sri.Somayaji Yandan a.lso Saoiniayaji’ yvho
is one of the disciples” of and
50′-it peethadhipathi. an idol of
Sr’1.Somayaji Majority of the
Devotees installation of any
new idoldliln’ no religious sanction.
The this unauthorized move
of few ind’iv_idualsf”»t,h’u’s felt that they need to get
thernse’ive’s._organ’i2’ed and accordingly founded a trust
“lf3.«’edantha Deshika Trust’. The said Trust
in’i-tiated’ proceedings under petitioner No.1 herein. One
of devotees is petitioner No.2 in his individual
“‘-capacity. who proposes to protect the sanctity of the
–“temple inasmuch as a few individuals have made
attempt to install the new idol in the temple in the year
0
,w’
‘//,<'''
– 7 –
1997. Respondent No.5 »~ ‘I’ahsild21.r passed an order on
22.08.1997 directing removal of the statue and t.ak1rigpit
out of the precinct of the temple i.e.,
The said order of the 5″! respondent, was
some of the devotees of
W.P.No.29’733/1997. This Court.
petition on 10.1 1.1997 with
that the Government Cotznniivssioner
shall hold a prelirninaryjppheeirintgtwhether the
idol of Sri.Sor1:_%;1f,}e§j»i:. ‘Was–vtthen kept in the
Navararigett’of.:iii;heuiftemple” be permitted to be
continued in that. ‘p1_*ace«..or…t§vhether it should be moved
of to the ‘Yag_;§isha*la’A”v_or””iouter prakara’ till the final
‘xi”de<:isio'na.j-by'~–the Government. The copy of the order
"p_a'sseVdrA in this writ petition is at Annexure
.C.l' V
2 it the meanwhile the Senior Agamika attached
office of the 2*" respondent. filed a report. A Copy
the report dated 04.10.1997 is at Annexure 'DZ
1'
,,/./7
According to the petitioners. 21 perusal of the said report 4;
makes it abundantly clear that a new idol Cannot. be
installed in the temple. If at all, if, they propose to
install the said idol that shall be done by eonstru:et_i:iil_lgax
new temple for the same. According to the
this report was prepared on hp
religious customs prevalent in the
temple. On 29.05.1998. " he
report to the 131 respondents?
by this Court in the According to
the said report._:j’the::’__’of Sri.Somayaji
Andariiyiias t’o”t~1’1″e temple and the same
cannotl-be«l. at respondent No.6
temple he op.inedthat, the idol should be returned
tolthle 5.-person Who’Wanted to donate the same. Copy of
the lsafiie Annexure The Government passed
25.07.1998 directing that the idol of
.ASVri.S.ornayaji Andan shall not be installed in the temple
C a further direction to that group to have a separate
Fternple. if they so desired for worshipping the said idol.
Copy of the same is at Annexure ‘F. The ease of the
i
/5″
_ 9 _
petitioners is that. Annexure ‘F” had become final. The
said order at Annexure ‘F’ was challenged by sornje’*—-of
the devotees before this Court in
and it was withdrawn on 27.05.1999, sinee
the ease of the petitioner. that
successfully persuaded the Czopvernmient
stand. Resultant effect was
another order dated earlier
order dat.ed jlaproduced at
Annexure of the idol of
that. keeping in
mind both the groups. the
required proi.eetion.,’-is”»_to”‘:be given so as to maintain
9.l3’33C9-Einid=U73′-flquim-5V’§””1lhe petitioner W Trust questioning
tkrinexure ‘G’ permitting the installation of
this a writ petition before this Court in
1999. The petit.ionerm’I’rust withdrew the
_w”ri’i–.pe’titaion inasmuch as the respondent – Government
agreed to reconcile and withdraw Annexure ‘G’.
“”Thus. respondent No.1 passed another order onfl
::—-Z—-/
, 3 ‘
«l0~
27.01.2000 Withdrawing t.he order dated 01.06.1999 at
Annexure ‘G’ and restoring the order dated
T he resultant effect was that the idol in _
not be installed. This c.ontinued…fo_r’
time. When things stood thus, after
after the Government orderwdatedll
respondent without any have
changed its order and the principles
of natural order on
theminstallation of the
Andan. According to
the pe’titionei: order at Annexure ‘A’
_ cannot. be’ svustaindedVinasmuch as it is passed in
it Vioelation ofA.the’p’rii”1’ciples of natural justice. During this
the group professing the faith of Somayaji
a Pit. before this Court. in
AAW.P.No}6047/2000. During the course of hearing of the
it Public interest Litigation. it was brought to the
–Vinottice of the Court that the proposed idol to be installed
in the temple was no more available in the temple
/
/,/-
inasmuch as it was stolen. It is to be noticed that in
this regard a police complaint was lodged
investigation was done. This Court, l1aving.–§7_egard—-._
the fact that the idol itself was not .availal:a’1e”,’ theu
View that the question of ent.eri;«aiifii11g th_e”~ PIL’ :an’C§.;_’
passing an appropriate order__”W.ould:”be an ..v€X§I’CiSf3′ in
futility. Thus, the said,—l?zlL was—dhistnissedl.
5. It is not in disp1l1te_ have also
filed a suit. file of the Civil
Judge for a decree
–theHrlein from installing the
idol, which inlcludes group of supporters for
Sri.VS’o.rnayji: Andans idol in the temple. The
‘saidsu_vit.eis.,:sti_ll pending. The main plank of attack on
the”‘winipug;fne:cll’order is that the same is passed without.
notice the petitioners and also is in violation of the
pi’iii.ciples of natural justice.
8. On notice the devotees of Sri.Somayaji Andan
have entered appearance and filed statement of
a
/K”
objections. In the statement. of objections, they would
contend that Srisomayaji Andan was a great
his times and his works and teachings are _
esteem and is a highly respect.ec_1_..saint..
them he is being worshipped
opposed to the religious llbeliefs ‘of
Indeed. they would relyxon orderl\\\ppp%l/ssed by
the State that there slholIil’dll’irnpedirnent in
installation of Andan in the
precincts oi; woiild state that the
as t_o what is their
fundaIVnent;all is being infringed by the
impugned question the locus of the
pettitlionters*..in fi.ling”‘this writ petition. They would also
.tTo«..ll.thee~learlier proceedings, which are already
elucidated’ the preceding paragraphs. It is submitted.
by that the W respondent. having taken into
[consideration the past four proceedings and various
it ” -“other factors felt that it is iust and proper to accord
permission for installation of the idol and has proceeded
I
J
to pass the impugned order. They would justify the
imptigned order on the ground that it is just
proper.
7. Mr.P.A.Kulkarni, learned;Jcodnsel;_appearing*for’1
the petitioners submits ‘
respondents 6 to 8 in the to
bring Utsava l\/Iurt,liét_._”‘:ot to be
installed in the,_ternple. the Utsava
Murthy of installed in the
faith of the temple
would:,_Aidol is to be installed
without. Hence, in the absence of
p_ V’igraha;..the installation of the Utsava Murthy of
‘ :Sri.Sorn’ayaj”iVAndan is not permissible according to the
“religions7.”teif1:=et. He would contend that the respondents
notwithistanding such strong objections from the Trust
the Temple authorities have chosen to install the
v’7iUtS8.V8. Murthy in the Yagashala. The sum and
substance is that in the absence of the Moola Vigraha,
fir/i
the question of the Utsava Moorthy being installed does
not arise.
8. lVir.Subhash. learned counsel it
followers of Sri.Somayaji Andaiji
impugned order. He would p~o_i’nted’iy.:j-iezfer
writ petition wherein the ‘the
installation of the idol _’~’lllv”VVli”c”«.Gr0Vlév1;AT11l’AYl1l€3T1t afld
that the GovernmentvAi,s…th–e He would
also press. various Vedic
scholaVV1V”$-_.’VEV(:)’ it is permissible
to install–_ of Sri.Somayaji Andan. He
further suubrnitls PIL was dismissed having
bec.’o_me’~ infruc:t.uousV since the idol was not found.
‘Henvee”«.a«.v:le’ornp1aint was lodged and the case is
.i’e.gist.ereudg–: however a ‘C’ report was filed. The sum
and .suhstanCe is that the petitioners cannot have any
ttoolbjeoetion for installation of the idol of Srisomayaji
l l.Andan. fl
%
E
‘J1
E
9. Indeed during the eourse of hearing. both the
petitioner as well as the respondent would
service various literatures relating to the u
of Vaikhansa. They have also it
material as to where the idol of
be installed in t.he temple i1iV»q_ti’e.stion’;’ V
10. Indeed wheizgjjthe this
Court on by the
Court that! it would be
hyllltaking opinion of the
leariied field.” lVIr.Subhash. learned
counsel 7 and 8 has also
filed; ad’menéow-..indicVat.ing the names of five learned
‘Sansl:.rit.’Scholars. Mr.P.A.Kulkarni, learned counsel
lappearidngf—-fo:rthe petit.ioners conceded that the names
of ltlfietxpscholars suggested are in fact the names of
Scholars in this field. It is also submitted by
him that the petitioners would supplement a few names
for this purpose. so that all the Scholars who would
render their opinion to the Eindowment Commissionergfi
¥
1
m§(-}s
who shall thereafter assess the same keeping in view
t.he opinion to be furnished by the
consultation with the Official Agamika. testis’ _
further directed the Endo\vme_11t_ 04
Consult the five Sanskrit
Scholars whose names
counsel for the petitioners W€€kS
from that date. was
directed to thesaid Scholars,
obtain they; subject matter
involv;éd”fa13xdf, the matter with the
to this Court. It was
also ..observeVd~.V’tha’t f”i’il:)erty was reserved to the
Entd.o\v’inei1t Corlirriissioner to hold a joint. meeting.
Thereafftertfthe..matt.er was listed on 17.04.2008.
0′ ,. f’lAl,…f\4’7\fl’1en t.he matter was listed before the Court
A 7.04.2008, it was suggestied by the learned counsel
fgfor the petitioners as well as the respondents that the
names of few more scholars would be given and so also
their opinion with the Endowment Commissioner and
K
/5
installed. Thus. opined that the idol can be installed in
the North~East corner of t.he temple.
13. This report is seriously ‘
petitioners inter alia
was stated earlier inasmuch
Moorthy is installed. t.he the
Utsava Murthy does spleoifie ease
of the petitionffrs is to be
insta.lled. is and not
Moola was a great Scholar
and be” the nephew of Saint
Ramanuj”ae_hiaryxa.. is informed that the
temple ‘in professes the faith of Vaikhansa
‘Doc.trine«., vVail__<.ha.nsa claims to be a surviving school of
Vedic Taittiriya sakha of Krishna Yajurveda.
The Vaikhansa tradition say the sage Vikhanas. who
A manifestation of Brahma or Vishnu composed the
aikhanasa Kalpasutra and taught 'four diseiples Atri.
Bhrigu, Kasyapa and Mariehi. The History of
Vaikhanasas is they originated as a group of ascetics. In 5
a
o
.
the Manava Dharrnasastra. Mann discusses
vs.na1pr21st,11a, foresvdweller, the third of th_e.._ifo’u.r
asrarnas, stages of life and mentions a
rule”. _
14. It is not in dispnt_e pert1Szi:1V” of”
pleadings as well as the
indicate that the fign.’v.’Vvvi’severs.iVitoecasions
modified and restored iVtVs:”oVrdeVrs:v. order of
the GovernVrrien:t.ts:i:. by the
petitioners tiling writ petitions.
It is E’;-.V1Aso._ thatw respondent No.7 was
instrumentals and E3.’.’t.A’LhV€.’,”i’IT instance the impugned order
is passed. Indeed according to the petitioners. no new
g_r’ou_ndvwss4Vn1ade out to upset the earlier order passed,
clearly stated that the ido} of
‘V Arldan cannot, be kept, in the temple
Indeed the moot. question. which fails for
eonsideration would be whether the 13’ respondent was
‘justified in virtuaiiy upsetting the earlier order of
declining to install the idol in the precincts of thefl
t.emple. Indeed a perusal of the impugned order
discloses that t.he same is passed without.
to the petitioner or to the respondents. If _
which is sought to be made aVailable__durihgth»e .4
of the hearing before this Courtilis
and also the subsequent
before t.he Endowment prveport as
directed by this Court’.4″vtI_ou’1~¢l_v}1L1ial{§’v’jt’,&Vab_undantly clear
that the 2nd upon itself
without ‘t:h_e”x_S’eholars in this regard to
pronojL1hHee”thiat ii7tlie”‘idpol of S1″‘i;S:omayaji Andan be kept
in thezpree,inets and it shall not harm the
religiotis fe’eling,of anydodf the parties. Nevertheless. it is
to'”b<e noticed t,hat""p'ursuant, to the impugned order. the
1 Vrerlidgiouspd of the petitioners are hurt and hence
they a;re.t;uestioni11g the impugned order before this
.. C.ourt;…- 1'
15. Indeed the impugned order certainly can be
set~aside on this very short ground that the same is
passed without, notice to the petitioners or even to the
x
,%’
L
respondents. Indeed t.he beneficiary of the earlier order
must be put on notice before the said order is
any order is to be passed detrirnerital to
Hence, I am of the View that
liable to be set–aside.
16. Another reason. whVi’eh”13ersu’a.des
the matter to the the order
passed by this Court joetitiori. Indeed
in the earli’eifi: devotees the 15*
for Religious and
Charitabl_e– required to consider the
representa_tions’given. Vor, to be given by the petitioners
aaidjg objl’eetlioIis,: if any. filed or to be filed by
‘ re–s.por1d«e1its’–4§ to 65 and also t.o examine the documents
Ina§.”L:beT::.V;droduCtéd in that behalf and after hearing
as lzedeems fit. A direction was issued to submit a
report. to the Government t.o enable the Government: to
take a decision as to whether the gift. of the idol of
Srisornayaji Andan should be aeeepted by the temple
or not and if accepted. how and where it should l
‘V3-
installed. This Court also observed that the 1*’
respondent is at liberty t:o obtain the opiriion/s
independent Agamika in addition to the
Agamikas in the matter. _
17. A perusal of the_ri._ranpulgn.edz
disclose that such an exerciseylldhiais been all
the material. which before
the Competent A . _AuthVo.ri.ty V._l be produced
before this that all the material
is re(;tuire'(i».VV’toil: Considered by the
that on the basis of
the report” _ of2″iltilehlflllScholars, the Endowment
Co»n31missioner”1.f1as sent. a report. indicating that there is
._im_pedi.tftent. on the installation of the idol of
‘Sri’;VSornayja}Vie:=Andan in the temple in question. I am of
the View’ that the matter requires to be re~heard by the
State ~ respondent No. l.
T he report filed by the Commissioner before this
Court and the objections Filed by the petitioners to the
said report also shall ‘form part of the p1’OCC€’,di1′}g –
before the W respondent before any decision is taken in
this regard i.e., Where to install the idol, whet.hervw§.n’-the
temple precincts or elsewhere.
18. Hence, the following order * *
(a) Petition is allowed,’
(‘0) The im u “1’1€Cl 0rde_rl”‘»vvat»._p if? ‘A’ is
quashed. ‘l’he_zfrn2–itte;.;< "s_1_;a_nd,s remitted to
respondent No.1 for fresh c:~onsifder:at.ion.
(C) The. of the report of
an*dl}vthe opinion of the
1*" respondent. can
'call for ':"rTje;~s}:
_ [(1) T respo’nd’e’nt. shall take into consideration
varilousliterature on the subject and decide
wi’iether Utsava Murthy can be installed
the M00121 Murthy.
2 {ev)T,l’he 15″ respondent shall give a personal hearing
to the petitioners and respondents and their
representatives.
EL
(f) St.at,us~quo as on 30.09.2005 to continue.
Ruke is made absoiute.
SPS