High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri U M Mahabala Gowda vs State Of Karnataka Rep By The … on 16 April, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri U M Mahabala Gowda vs State Of Karnataka Rep By The … on 16 April, 2009
Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & V.G.Sabhahit
the managing truststa. The petitionfir is  as

managing ftmstete far the East more than 

prim' ts that, U K Maiiappa G0w§.adminis1:1'at0r dC}€:S not cal} far iiltelference.

3.    fieard the ieaxned C{)1.1I1S€1 appeming for the

 . 2:_33p=ei1ar;:   {he iearned Govemmsnt Aévacate appearing

  "1'1*;3§;¢ vt1:%v3"A_:*esp0I:d€:1£s.

 



4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submitted that the petitioner is 3. ma;1ag1'ng tru§té§'qf the

i;t:mp1e and the temple is being duly adminisié-r<§£i~:4_t?;e

process for appointment of comn1ii;t€e of fiias 

started despite the pendency   3  fihfi 

Hoxfble Supreme Court  ofi -Hie:  
addressed by Elna Miniffizer of  éiaigmataka, the
Revenue Inspactor has-..§*eer§V_  Administrator to
the pefiii0ner'$_»te;;:npi§;-;"   and iliegai and
{h€I'€fOI'€   _KQ%uréi.'er._«-4i3fé'V3éQ:§1é 'tG be quashed. We
1eaI*:1€€1_.Si;;¥Vff3.'g;]§:::"  j}%{sVtified in (iiSI}1iSSi:i'}.g the

writ pétiticn. . V   

5. , LeaI'1éé:£._  C}V€$vefi1:i3L£§r1t Advocate appearing for the

.  'r€sVp£;i1é£%:31€s,subI«Iii'tiéVd that the process for appointxnent of

'A"fif.".1ma1}ag€ment has been aiready started.

I~°iéI;sar_eve__r,' c1u:;1e  to the daciaratizm of _pariiame:'1tary elecfion,

 gfoeréss could not be cempleted and the Sanixe will be

  cémpieted immediately after parliztmsntary elections are

' " -«fixer.

Ls}



6. We have given careful consideration to the
conterztions of the iearned counsel appearing for  parties

and scrutinizeé the materiai on record.

7'. The material on record weulé cIear1y.~,4':s}h:)i%é: 

petitioner is tile"  --.._'Tr1a.1é$';e<<:""VE for Sri
Maflikarfiuzlaswamy i?¢:;1p15%,%   Suiiia, 3 K
Disuict, is   Steps hava been
taken for  of nianagement and
{ha :3*i;5e<§fi§ and due {at} the
dec1ar%:VzEtiQ"rx'. <31' ~  eiectiens, the process could

not ¥;)r;:_ c0fi{p§e te:c1, ~ iS"'a1é€) not disputed. Hawever, pending

 '*-{:QIis§'d£:rati{xn ofmtlle appointment of committee sf

 fiae Sm respondent has graceedsd to appoint

131??-.44_R€:”%f’€2?i:tVi;§F:;AinS}:)€CtOr as Administratar to the temple on

“*¢;§1{:: gfi1.f1d that there was 3. thafiz of valuables in {Jim temple

VA campiaint has been filed and that the apgointrnent of

…A€iI:1inistrator is necessary.

(‘H

Wfv