High Court Karnataka High Court

Shree Durga Parameshwari Temple vs The Deputy Commissioner on 15 January, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Shree Durga Parameshwari Temple vs The Deputy Commissioner on 15 January, 2009
Author: N.Kumar
wan' Pmrnon fio.i{§f§f20§)qGM4Rf§i~--;vV"V  

1 SHREE
SHREE KSHATRA       
emwAn15?:5  V   
    

DI:   
  BIJRAI
AGED  diff'   
RIC3._BLJRAfH5?USE;~.F'-----_.  
KARHUNJE,- A     

Ktmmm. 'TALU§i L'DUPI DISTRICT

 PEIHENER

 "    «   SHETIY & N R.&JA,&f.EICAR -

 % 11 mznnmwcomamaxonnn
"   1  RELBCIISAIIDCHAI'-2I'D&Bl.E
% tzvvm nlstmw
 U13Um

    ;-2 Tm sum or Imamrrmm
% REP BYHSSECREPARYTO GOVERN1\$N'I' 01-'
xanrmrax nzmxmmrr on MUZARAL
vmrmm soumm,
BANGAIDRE 560 001

Rmmmm WWW fi2®f£53fKTE' 0»? MKNATAM 1-Mme COURT or nu-xlmmmm mm-s comm 0? KAKNATAKA Hmw ='i'C"€,".1WE'"&' OF MRNAYAM new as

V'.

 

w
:§
£3
£3
x
£3

H: mm HIGH ccnmr or mnnrm AT    %

DA'I'E'.D 11113 'I153 15*» DAY 05' aanuanig       ~ _

Trm HC)I~I'BLE     



[By SR1 HAREHDRA PRASAD, HCGP)  %
mts wzzrr P3111101: IS man  
2326 AND ma? OF THE   
PRAYING T0 QUASH 'rm  wommcafflorz 
01.01.20

-o9vIDE ANX-A. 5
‘mm WRIT PE:’I’I’I’IC3H___ comma
PRELIAMARY Imzumm 11iIS..1fr.!&Y:1’fE; ‘G0iJR’-‘1’ MADE A
‘1’rmFoLio: % %
than wmmitlne of
far ksa;;1″”amy;y%£L%f$1:ua=:~e Durga ‘

‘> trust repzreaentad by fin tz-usiaaaa.
election held on 19.1.2005 under me.

Religious Izmfitutinns amt Chnritahle

Act, the ma? commntae was elected
Y ‘ f.;;;.%1();4.2e:3s for a pa:-£nd of five yam. The parizd cf

committee comes to and only on 9.4.2010. In tha

GR CQURT OF KARNATAKAR H232″? OF KARNAWM REG!-§ fi”.’i€Z§%..£=’?;¢ié:°§ 0? KARNAVRKA WC-EH COURT OF KKRNATAKA I-HGH COUIW 01′ KfiflNATAKA Hififi Ci

Charitable Endewmenta Act. 1997 was: premugatned by

QMMKT GE’ %flRNATfie~.K% Hififi C0

51% CHM

ix WWNATAKA mmfi 63.9%-M my KARNATAM I-HG!-E COMM UF i£ARNMTA!(.A Hum I..;€.JN.JK!’ (Jr Imammnnm

mcommmmvmmw ofthe. am
was an order of any and thmegoxq tlmymnnifmi
trustees of the temple.

Judge ofthis Court uphald the

fiievedby the same, the

was siuzihiy planed this

Court; The Divmon in appeal

struck £53 I It is not in
dispute that entertained an
elf and
sbagred. the of the Division Bench.
:1: the germs baa::1atr1.u:k

rm am of m. cm,

order :3!’ stay granted by the

mm, the efimt is time Act ‘3 run’. in fame.
impugned mmcatson issued caning in
_V an appoment of tmsmas 1:’: the
oormnithee is can without junaaicaon and
“therein-e, liable tn bequanhad

3. Ida mtmdanysubstanoeintheaaid

t:u’1t£’.11!.’i0n.. No-doubt, a Divhian Bench of this Cr:utt\/ _

»%;;§%§»§%”€”‘ 3? WflRNWfi”N€& H36″ 303%”? OF KJKRNAYAKA WGH CQURY OF i(fitRNA’E”fiKA MGR CC

wminnfl mm-rs uwwxfi WJF KARN.A7’&Kfi new

has ammkdawn the Act But the Supreme ”
atayedtha opemtian ommmsdacx. Tin f
fimn the dam: of the order of
Divisia:1Bar.Ix:hia A

wzgle Judge upnon-ling the 5? Act ti»
mmmnss issu§_dinp.unsame w _ which

4. any man: in thin
pefi5mm

….. _ Sd/_,
Judge