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

0
52
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

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here