IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13"" DAY OF JULY 2009
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. P.D. DINAKARAN, CHIEF JUSTICE H.
AND
THE HON'8LE MR. JUSTICE V.G. SAi3HA%---|__}'.-'f§".:A..""AV.' A
way: APPEAL NO. 1828[2I}__Q_g_(_GM:«+R'[€'.):E"-i A A
BETWEEN:
1.
Sri. Kariyappa bin Thippanna,
Aged about 60 years.
. Sri. Govindarayappa bin
Thimappa,
Aged about 43 years.
Sri. RamaAchar{d'ra'ppa:w.A A
S/0. Paiappa; ' _ '
Aged about'5S years. '-
. Sri. Mo«_3d|aAppau,i
.~*S/O- H'a'r3uvmanthapp'a... _____
Ag'ed a"'QOl3'1i:'»45 yea rs.
. SuJri..VVVI~1aEiya.;:j'pa" tAfi'.n.:'.'13annahanumanthappa,
Aged. about GS-:_vAears.
"e._AI| are resEd.,En"g. at Iguru
" " 5£30--!.Ea"rahattE Viiiage,
A c '~Dav.anager.e Taluk,
'-~._"=Dav.ana'gere.
APPELLANTS
AND
Aged about 30 years.
. State of Karnataka,
Represented by
Under Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department (Muzrai),
M.S. Building,
Dr. Arnbedkar Veedhi,
Banga|ore--S60 O01.
The Deputy Commissioner,
Davanagere District,
Davanagere.
. The Assistant Commissioner, _
Davanagere Sub--Division,.__
Davanagere.
Sri. S.P. Govindappa bin paiisppga, V" 'A V'
Aged about 55 y;earsi;s»i'_, . " A it "" "
Smt. Jayamma.,,.Ko._rn':Moortyneijoaw,"'7
Aged about 45. years'i¢I§:,; "
Smt. Kenoharn'm'a
Aged about4_5'years_. = '- "
Sri. Jaya' z~.taii<a"'biVii, mesa Nzaika,
..«'Aged ab3ou:t__,'3S% years... _____
Sari'. K." Naga'pp'ai,dbin_ Doddaveerappa,
Aged -a.bou.t' igears.
' Sri. Cri-i.kka_ppaijbin Huchappa,
Aged abo.ut.§+'S years.
."..f~.Sri.'P_.3. Nvaiappa bin Gadrappa,
' _ ' --Agerii=about 54 years.
B.F'. Umeshappa bin Thimrnappa,
12. Sri. V.H. Thimmappa bin Thirramappa,
Aged about 43 years. .. RESPONDENTS
Respondents 4 -12 are residents of
Iguru Goilarahatti Village, ..
Gollarahatti Post, Davanagere Taiuk, Davanagere Dist…….j_; V ”
(By Sri. Basavaraj Kareddy – Pri. Govt. Adv. for ‘i_:to_3)’ _
This Writ Appeal is filed under Sevetiioin’ 4, of
High Court Act praying to set aside.’ tij1_’ei~’iorder’~_passe’d_”in:
W.P.No.19844/2007 dated 13.04.2009. ‘ ‘
This Writ Appeal coming up fo’r-.§reliminar.y”i~ie-ariivag on this
day, the Court delivered the following: Z
J V
(delivered by,P’.D..– 1
The learned though the
impugned i§~:.as. issued as in the year 2003,
i.e., on in the official gazette on
01.05.2003, wi5it.gii’V was filed on 13.12.2007
oh–a.ll_engiV_ng: “~’n.o_t_i_fication and therefore, there is an
ino’.+din:at’e..Vd«ela~yj.on.__the part of the appellants/petitioners in
:7″a_presentingFthe ‘é£éiijrit’.I=p’etition, dismissed the writ petition on the
‘V°»._gro’und ofu’del”ay and laches. Being aggrieved by the said order,
,1ritvhjeA’.apApeii’~!ants/petitioners have come up with the present Writ
4
2. Today this matter has come up for Preliminary
Hearing. When the matter was called, there was no
representation on behalf of the appellant.
3. Learned Government Advocate app:e~a.ri_’ng_’__i”lifo’r_
respondents 1 to 3 submits that since the appellants/gpetgitionersl_
have filed the writ petition after a lapsehiof lmore”«th’a’ri
assaiiing the correctness of the notif_icatio’n Vilmpugned. the}
petition, the learned Single Judge hlas:rightly'”d.is’misse’d: the writ
petition on the ground of”~dela§/N:aVAn*d.._ iaches andflx thus no
interference is called for.
4. iiieairdlrthle r–(§otrern.rrl’ent Advocate appearing
for responde1nts”1:’ to the records.
5. i9_ara’i6~.,V’ofi.’the’V’ order of the learned single Judge
rega th {is it ‘
learned counsel appearing for
both the .pa?i_’ties, after considering rival contentions
. é urgeldubyl both the counsel and after careful perusal
V. the rnateria! available on record, it emerges that,
tact, petitioners have not produced any
h authenticated documents to establish that they have
“locus standi to maintain this writ petition for
f: . fl
§a._-=«r””””‘
5
redressing their grievance, except stating that, they
are the devotees and they have got exclusive right to
perform pooja and other functions of Sri
Ramadevaru temple situated at Iguru Gollarahatti
village, which has been exclusively worshipped
the petitioners’ community alone and it is
muzrai temple. It is significant to note that, 2″
reliance placed by learned counsel app_ea’i*’in1g_~. for
petitioners on Annexure-A the er7dorseinen_t’1ai’leg’ed,_2’j,__Ti’
to have been issued by the Tahsi’lda_r2. Dava-nageredw
Taluk dated ‘a§3′;2_0o7″x- _ 1vbea_ri’rg
No.DVS:CR:12:7:200?-08. be seen. from the
perusal of the said ::_4Annexure->A,_V thagt, the “said
endorsement has not been issued request of
these petitioners’ and it ‘has pursuance
of the 1 ‘b’ one’._’Sri}2V Ja varego wda S/o.
Kariyappa, 4′ Igllrud’Gioliarahatti, on 30″‘ July 2007.
When the~c_petitio’n_ers’ have’ not filed any application
seel<inggginformation, they cannot place reliance on
,.,.,the':c__encio.rsement yvhich has been issued in favour of
third, parts;/:'and.. the petitioners have not whispered a
sma. as to what is the source of
i'nforma_t'io.n2}' and as to how they got the said
'*._endorsen::ent. It is an admitted fact after careful
pgerusal of the official communication dated
_ ':.7;9;"1998 bearing No.DVS:CR:9:1:98-99,' the
…_notification produced by the respondents-4 to 11
dated 11.2.2002 bearing NO. DVS:CR:1 97712001-02
.2' 2"'
6
and dated 28.2.2006 bearing l\io.DVS:CR:348:
2005-06, for having constituted the committee of
Management that, after the expiry of period of three
years, the Committee of Management has been
constituted from time to time to look after thee
administration and day today activities of Sri
Sri Basaveswara Devaru temple and the sai’d.l’g:’*– ” .2
committee has been represented by mem.be.rs’ffrom .
different communities. These ;are 2′ ‘theg Ci’ll’iC_li7i’flu§’.,VV ‘V
materials available on record and the pe’t’itio~ners”
have intentionally and deliberately is-uppreslsveciift
said fact and it is nothing an a2bus_e”:of the
process of Court. Fu’rt~h_er e–sji.gn’ificant to note
that, the impugned noti:fica’tio’n.,has beendssued early
as in the year 2603, i.e:,”on.:’30′”.g4pri;l,’_ and the
same thxeeofficial gazette on 15’
May 2003 writ petition has been
presentedgon v1’3″_””‘Dece’mber 2007 and therefore,
thereis an inc-=rdii7ate”‘deelay of nearly four years and
“”«–..,the’..__$sa:;.ci delay H h’as”not been explained by the
‘p.et;’tion.ers;satisfactori’ly by offering cogent and valid
rea.s_ons’ 7″_~fori~.jcondonation of the said delay.
Therefo_re,.,eeas rightly pointed out by the learned
“v._couns’el appearing for respondents in their objections
e’..fjas’eVteferred above, the writ petition filed by
.2 ‘petitioners is liable to be dismissed on the ground of
be ..,.delay and laches and also on merits.”
.53
6. In view of the submissions made by the {earned
Government Advocate and for the reasons stated in para 6 of the—-.__
order dated 13.04.2009 made in W.P.No.19844/2007,
Appeai stands dismissed.
tChie£_.}”us’ti’Cé’; 0
A
Weti