High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Y Prafulla Shetty vs State Of Karnataka on 29 January, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri Y Prafulla Shetty vs State Of Karnataka on 29 January, 2009
Author: B.Sreenivase Gowda
IN THE HIGH (3<}I_§RT 012' EQARNATAKA A'? 
EEATEES T-H18 THE -29%: 133%' cm LEAN§§#l%%;;'   Q 
B 3 F8    V & j   -   _   
THE HG§\E'BLE MR. .ms'r:j:":§:    _

writ Peaitjan No. gasggfif 20:3'? .€%:'£v:.¥»%12*.X"t.';} 

Between:

A   91  _?sState of Kamilataiéa

:, Sri Y. i3ra:T11;1a S3_1eti:§r'," . V .. 
S/9 Sri{Y.  Shei:t§;,"'  
Ag6d:.ab'c:;sL:i~-.€:?_ ycazjs,-V.._  ' »
Ma,I1aig?r1g V';1_'ruS;¥:st?,,°~  ¢_   g
Sfé'-XfifiS}'£§¥'€Sii}W3f§ Tenipisr, 
HV'e}luru',3;3dup3, _  --

Sr': M; Jayarai1:.a"E¥.;éig:i%:,
S / G 'Shesu ;':?»_h&?;t:y, 

V Agéd ajkr(;u?;;7--2 yraars,

V, . Mazmgilzg Trustee,
" aS1fiV.»Janardha ii"T$mpl€ & 111 Mariguiii,
 2 iiaujp-,,Post: Kapu,
'L?_éli:;1_p: F;*.i:§;§.:r§_ct.,

1%.?

, , .P<=:tifio:1€I's

(B; Ii  Mohan Rat), Aévs}

Er 
E (3:



R€:p:':3s€I13:_cd by tha Secrtatmjsz,

T0 the Govcrmnant sf £<Ia;r:1at:a}:a,
R€V€1"1'i1€ Department,

ML11tistomyer;} Blliltliifig,

Vidhana. Vefidhi, Bangaéare $68 (301.



 

3

2. Commissioner,      ._  3
Hindu Religious Ba Cha1itz£ibIeEn_dowIn,ents;   *
ohamarajpet, Q  "  ~. «. '
Bangalore 560 018.       V  -.

~ '"  ..'.~..R<_E:_sp'ondents.

(By sri H.K. Basavaraj, Hoopgf 

This Writ Petition ' ffl'ecie-finder 'A'_rtieies 226 85 227 of
the Constitution of .__I'_ndia.A ~.,pI''ayi1i''gvv,.'' ' to quash the
coinmuriieationi 'czateczj 6.V3._2UO'7"~.fi'n. VNo.jADM.B:CR: 152/O6~
07, Annexu1'e"A,i}:;i'ssue~d by the 21$ respondent.

hearing, this day, the
Court inade the

* “pi E R

Petitioners -have’«…”-7prefeIred this writ petition

ti1e””oorn.rnu11ication, Annexuie A appointing

t.h’;¢’–Taj1siida1i:”as Administrator of Vishweshwara Temple

Yeilnru, iodiuprraiuk.

.4 n Govt. Advocate has filed a memo along with

of the Government Order dated 6.9.2007,

G iIifi’ti1draisring the Government Order dated 23.5.2007

[appointing administrators to 13 temples in Udupi District

including the _oetitioner’s temple. In View of the same. this
%’

Vb/–»

writ pfitificsri has: become. ;i1″1fi*uc:ue3.1$. HCIICE fihti:

Writ –

péztitian is ciismisstid as having hecaméz 3I1frLI<:t;1:._{_§§.2$;' ~ "