IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS T HE 12'?" DAY OF JANUARY 2010
PRESENT
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA
AND
THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE..A_.S.BOPAI$1j1§ZA": I
W.A. Nos. 2920/2009 & 352E:3/::13jGCI)9II[GI\«E§:I{,fCj'A~.,,,IV.i
BETWEEN:
I
SR1 PRANAYA KUIVLAR
S/O SANJEEVA S'HF;TT{ ,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS *
TAj';LI.Ri'UA. WLLAGE' 3:: POST
KUNDA?U TA1*'UK- --
U-D091 DI_STRI0CT._ *
SR1 sRI1N1§2'ASA:_'IKA1,LU RAYA
, As/0 KALLURAYA-
.. AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
" "SR1 MEANJUANTHA MLAYA"
* -» _ KO'I;.LU_R-- POST & VILLAGE
' AK§;»1m,A0D:aA TALUK, UDUPI DIST.
SRl.M{:IEIANKUMAR CHERPPADI
" S ;o LATE KODOTH NARAYANAN NAYAR
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
"NARAYANAI\/I", WARD NO. 11 280wA
. ITNEJAR SR1 MOOKAMBHIKA TEMPLE
" KOLLUR POST KUNDAPURA TALUK
UDUPI DISTRICT -- 576 220
IV
SR} K S LAKSHMINARAYANA
S/O SUBRAYA K
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
KOLAKI, NITFUR POST
HOSANAGARA TALUK
SHIIVIOGA DISTRICT W 577 452
SR1 KRISHNAPRASAD ADYAI\ITI~IAyA H '
S / 0 SAN KAPPA ADYANTHAYA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
JALADI. KATBEZLURU VIIILAGE-I&"posTI.51: " "
KUNDAPURA TALUK ' I
UDUPI DISTRICT --- 576 220'
SR1 RAMKRISHNA'HASfiiLA " 1'
5/0 BELLI HASALA' ._
AGED ABOUT35 YEARS?'
KABBINALE.HALL1H»QLE PQST I "- "
KUNDApU'I2A'_-TALUKI "
UDUPI..DVIs'IfRI._cr 1 _
SMT.VGQ:IVE?:I. A
w/0 LAKSEIMANADELVADIGA
AGEJZD AB0UT_32 Y'E;AI'33S '
HALLIIRA HO ' BA'W{LADI
BEJVURUVPOST'. I' "
_ .KUNDAPLI RAITALUVAKA
. UDUPI DISTRICT
, .}{ALPANA BHASKER
__ " Ow'/Q BIIIASIKER
" ._ I«ALé*ijfj'CO£a§M€1S:S1ONER= ..
LTINOU' 'T§.EI1,léJ4:C)LT:S'«$§:ND cRAR1TAE1,E
END-Ov.rM'E:N'TST ' '
UDUPI D1SfI'F{I.CT."LJ:f)»[JPI
4 SR1 HAR.1KR.1SHNA PUNAROOR
,, S /O LA'TI4;'}]A"I'ELV VASUDEVA RAO
AEOGTSS YEARS
"SE1;EHAvAGAL1"
~ S "; TPUNARO_OR POST
._ TALUK
A G ' O.K,DiiS*TR1cT-- 578 179
7._5 SR1'; APPANNA HEG-DEE
A. S/'O RAMANNA HEGDE
"AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
-VBASRUR. KUNDAPURA TALUK
UDUPI DISTRICT
5
N//'
6 SRI I\/EOOKAMBIVIIKA TEMPLE
KOLLU R. J U NDAPURA TALUK
UDUPI DISTRICT
REPT. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER
(BY SR1 PADUBIDRI MOHAN RAO. ADV. C/R5, .0 _
SR1 K M NATRAJI ADDE... ADVOCATE GENERA1. "
FORRI 01122) I -1' A
.
THESE WRIT APPEALSARE FIE-LIED UNDETR
4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH RT ACT PR}’.YIN_G’-w7I7O”:SET I
ASIDE: THE ORDER PASSED :Ay1*H19: WRIT”PE3Ti”iiION Nos.
22583~»22584/2009 DATED O6/Q8;’.20~Q9. 3
These Appeals :.f0.i{I_’1f’é1*irnina1″y hearing
this day. V. GOPALA” ‘J;_’,: __ Fdelivered the
foliowing: 3
Paul, learned senior
c03,1nsE:’1_f01f:th-0 Sri K.M. Nataraj. learned
Addiii0naIIAt!\»’00a1eA’E}e:0~éral for respondents N0. 1 to 8
P.aduI)Ii’dr1′——-«E»/Iohan R30. learned Counsel for
I C’fi§’€’at0r«/’IT.és.;§o–n dent N0. 5.
A2.’ . “_~v.,_\7Ve:)i’ie2ve perused the interim order by
mnea Single Judge dated 06.08.2009 in
” ‘ A .,fl:w,.P..4_NoI.’2.2 583 / 2009 }E.M~RC).
I//’
6
become infruc’.i’uous. Further, t.he learned senior
counsel submits that pursuant to the interim order, the
Executive Officer is looking after the adflllniSlil’ati(iill”£iI1(il
the management of t:he temple which will defeat:
object’ of nominating devotees to
Committee for effective administration and i11lana’gemenr,’
of the temple.
4. The learned AdCE–iti’onal Vt V
Mr. Nataraj sought to~._]ust.ifyl lno_mination”‘Vof these
appellant’s-Alto;”méi*n§igir1g'”eon1mitt.ee of the temple
stat.iI1gl”_«t.hat.’ tl.lie:.’l”let”te_r’—3ian:it.ten by the Honble Chief
Minister iriaisi, Ae.o1*r$trued as 21 special order as
zur1dler””Seet.ion 25 of the Karnataka Hindu
_l_’Rt:lligioi;is;:lnVs¥:_it”i;tic)iis Charitable Endowments Act, 1997
[f’or._ehoi<t. 5Act.').
Mr. l\/Iohan, learned Counsel for respondent
,Nc>.5?5also sought to justify the order impugned in this
iv
7
appeal by contending that while examining the claim of
each of the applicants among 106 applicants, the
appointment of the appeilants herein at the instance of
the Honble Chief lvlinister is totally nonwapplicrjatiiona:ei”
mind on the part of the second respondent:
the second respondent has on1y”‘aC’ted leitrtenrg
issued by the Honble Chief Min.i_ste_r.
Karnataka and nominated th–e’V”appel1an.ts;V.s he same is
contrary to the Karnataka GoV’ern1n’e.nt Tran’sact.ions of
Business Rules 1977 c.o_nst:itti_t.ional scheme
undeij ;iXrt.licleitv5l the.tV.Cons_tVitution of India. Further,
the learned placed reliance upon the
Government’ v_:Or.derd’.dated 22.05.2008 stating that.
l°-agai-nst»-ft:.he* previou’s”committ.ee of management in which
V’ peie=so.iis were members. against: them, the
GoVTe1’n;l’1Crli1″ has directed the Lokayuktha to conduct
:”enquiry..- against them and submit its report for its
l’ , ‘con-sideration. RM
8 .
6. With reference to the above rival legal
contentions urged on behalf of the parties. we proceed
to answer the same by recording the followmg reasons.
As could be seen from the impugned ordvei<l.:.:ll"the
appointment of the appellants is on
the modification of the interim order passedhyrv
Court in Civil Appeal No.5924/
Court. on 31.07.2009 vaeated__the'iriterirnvlloiider
02.04.2007 insofar as Act is
Concerned. The appoi«nltme'ht ofvlhtliev.a:pppellant.s is under
Sec:tio;'il§5"gif?,;l1e7fiAet.:"h.e£'orel._"lllrnlodifying of the interim
order insofar as the application
ui1(Z1€r_.Seetlio.¥.il oft Act. Further. the interim
'"«,,orde1:' the learned Single Judge after
1 ~..hearing:"t.Al.1e learned Counsel for the parties herein. The
lea1~*.ned__v' Judge considered the rival legal
l"'Cont.emio'ns and passed order impugned in this appeal
0' , 0 iii 'exercise of his discretionary power and therefore the
…g;ame can not be i11t.erf h for the reason that the
_____
9
learned Single Judge must have satisfied with the
prima facie case with regard to the ground urged in the
writ’ petitions ehaiiengirig the order impugned in this
writ petitions.
7. Without expressing any opinion on ‘
demerits of the case. We are of the~V.i.ew .thatdthe pa1ftie’;s.V
can approach the learned Sinéfe
prayer to expedite the 1’1€oE1I’iVI’1’§.”-f_i.(_”i~3(.,”t.h€.V\M[fiJl§ pet1ti0nV”as’V’this ‘V
Court’ need not interfere with–. “£171eh”-~discretiena_ry order
passed by the Eearned Singie~–Jt;’dgeii’-in..g1’a11ting interim
order éti’t:e1′ ‘exar:=1i’n¢ii’ive–vOi3servati0ns. the appeai stands
35/…
Iudge
Sd/-I
Judge
K hflrip/bms