{"id":176225,"date":"2010-02-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vedanta-deshika-trust-bangalore-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-secy-to-on-9-february-2010"},"modified":"2017-06-29T02:40:42","modified_gmt":"2017-06-28T21:10:42","slug":"vedanta-deshika-trust-bangalore-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-secy-to-on-9-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vedanta-deshika-trust-bangalore-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-secy-to-on-9-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Vedanta Deshika Trust Bangalore vs State Of Karnataka By Its Secy To … on 9 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Vedanta Deshika Trust Bangalore vs State Of Karnataka By Its Secy To … on 9 February, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Ajit J Gunjal<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\n\nDATED THIS THE 9\"' DAY OF FEBRUARY 20 \n\nBEFORE\n\nTHE HONBLE MR. JUs'r1cE:aAJ1'r'J.eU'1\u00a7ee;iArf   \n\nWRIT PETITION No.22722O;2e05(G1x\u00bbq41\u00a7\/geefa;\n\nBE IWEEN :\n\n1. Sri.Vedanta Deshika' '1.Trust',\"W *  \nBangalore,   _   g R - AA \nRepresented by its Seer-etary,'   \nSri.K.R.MukL1;nda, 62\"ye~ai's, \" \nS\/ 0.K.L.Ra;'1'ga'r1.lyengar;  ' A' i_\nNo.683, jI3ar1ei\u00a7aj';an3ra?_,   \n60 feet R-:_)Vad;_,\"BENEL  O\n4\"\" S_ta.ge_. Ra} a:7a]eswar111agar, \nBangalore  \u00bb  \n\n2. sr1.K;R.Mukunc:;;,v_  \nszyearsgaaa    R \nS\/,a..K.L.Ranga.Iye1iga'r,\n]\\\u00a7e.:,68Oi';_ 'Parichajanya',\n\nO  . 60 fee: Road, BEML Layout,\n\n' . \"\u00e9\u00e9l? C-ftager Raj arajeswarinagar,\n\n  \" vBai1ga}.Qre% E360 O98. ...PET1TIONERS\n\n {By  O\n\n   \"State of Karnataka.\n\n; By its Secretary,\n\n7 To the Muzurai Department,\nVidhana Soudha,\nBangalore ~ 560 001.\n\n\n\nt\n\u00a5J\n\n. The Commissioner for Religious\n\n& Charitable Endowments in\nKarnataka, Aluru Venkatarao Road,\nChamarajpet, Banga1ore\u00bb--5\u20ac50 018.\n\n. The Deputy Commissioner.\n\nHassan District, Hassan:573 2_O.1..,.__\n\n. The Assistant Commissioner and  ' '\n\nEndowment Of\ufb01cer. C'\nHassan Subwdivision,\nHassan:573 201.\n\n. The Muzrai 0fficeran'd,\n\nTahsildar, Hassan Taligk, T' \nHassan:573 2.01.  _  2\n\n. Sri.Lakshn\ufb01_iJ\u00a7an_ar.(1hai1a   \n\nSwamy5Fen1\"p.1e'.\"'\u00e9o ., _  V \nRepresentedits _ * A' A A \nCon'v'en'er. Co'in'mi't\u00a5:ee of  'T\nDharmadarsh-is,\"\"By1\u00abah'a11i, I\nSalagamez :3.7.3C'2\u00ab]_9.\u00bb._.  \nHassanTa1uk; H'asTsa11_. '\n\n. S;\u00a7'i.K;7['.Pat1:aohViran1ar1.\n\n   ..... ..\n\n. 'vS\/'o_,1a.te.S;..\/Tirumalachar.\nT   C .Ri'eat\"\u00abNo-..25:'1,\n_ \"T,u1s'1das__Ra1hdas Matt Road.\n' Frazer Town,\n\nsanggme W 560 005.\n\n J. I S_ri.H.R.Sr1'dhara.\nr _4Q years.\n\nS'\/o.Lat.e H.T.Ramaswamy Eyengar,\n\n Residing at: Jayalakshmi Nllaya,\n\n2\"\" Cross. 4\"' Main.Viveknagar,\nBangalore \u00bb\u00bb 560 047. ...RESPONDENTS\n\n\n\nJ; 3 _\n\nThis writ. petition is filed under Articles 226 and\n227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash\nthe order dated 15.09.2005 vide Annexure \"A' by Rl ~\nState of Karnataka.\n\nThis writ petition having been heard and reserved\n\ncoming on for pronouncement of orders, this day;.._'t1he\nCourt made the following: \"   \n\nORDER\n<\/pre>\n
The 15* petitioner is the
\nThey are questioning theVorder”-passedlptylbyithe
\nrespondent permitting the   the
\nprecincts of Sri.Laksla:rt;i’  Temple<\/p>\n
situated at’ Awl93y1a1e{alli_T”t{vi’l1age’,W”Hassan Taluk. Hassan.
\nThe said orderV”isTf.assai\u00bbl.ed on Various grounds. To<\/p>\n
appreciate the c’o.ntroversy in question, it is necessary to<\/p>\n
T'”:1ar’rate”thenfactualllloackground of the case.<\/p>\n
   is a temple. called Sri.Lakshmi<\/p>\n
 Janlardhan\u00e9a Swamy Temple. The Presiding Deity of the<\/p>\n
 saidteniple is Sri Lakshmi Janardhanaswamy, which is<\/p>\n
T  the Kuladeyatha’ or ‘Family Deity’ of large number of<\/p>\n
people of the village and also of neighbouring villages.<\/p>\n
According to the petitioners, the devotees of the temple
\nare spread over through the State and”
\nneighbouring States. The History of the  H
\nthe followers of the Scholar  ”\n<\/p>\n
advented the philosophy of
\nmain devotees of the t.enipie_V:”and
\nlarge numbers. The Deity ilianardhana
\nSwamy is installed  the sanctum
\nsanctorum  i   of Nammalvar.\n<\/p>\n
Bhagavan    Desikar and
\n  “”i’he”\u00a7said Deities are being
\nworshiippled  Since the date the<\/p>\n
temple was ‘coi’}:.st17ucted, the customs and rituals<\/p>\n
ll  pret\/:al.\u20acnt”i-are  Vadagalai Sampradaya prescribed<\/p>\n
  swaniy. follower of Vedanta<\/p>\n
Desika:r~. _”j..–As per sampradaya. there is no religious<\/p>\n
 xsganetion for installation of any new idol in this temple.<\/p>\n
it   not in dispute that the temple in question being a<\/p>\n
-dlviuzrai Temple, the provisions of the l\\\/iysore Religious<\/p>\n
and Charitable institutions Act, 1927′ were applicable.<\/p>\n
\/%<\/p>\n
indeed the said enactment was repealed pursuant to
\nHiridu Religious lnst.itutions and Charitable
\nEndowments Act, 1997 and the Rules made t,hereun{:leri
\nit is to be noticed that the vires of the said
\nwas questioned before this Court. A
\nthis Court has held that the
\ncontrary to the Const.itution\u00bb:and ltitusit
\nThe matter is now pending  the
\nthe APEX COUW has   which
\nwould necessar}’.1y_ mean.  force as of<\/p>\n
now. V _ .\n<\/p>\n
3.vVV’Unrl_ier  Mysore Religious and<\/p>\n
Charitable l”ast.’itutior1–s ‘Plot, the provisions which are<\/p>\n
‘ll'”Inadel\u00b0applieablelto””respondent No.6 — temple are that<\/p>\n
 \u00bbC’o_nt::olli11g Authority in all the matters<\/p>\n
oonrtyeeteyd. the Muzrai institutions as per Section 3<\/p>\n
‘””~.__l’uests wi’it},h the Government. The Muzrai Commissioner<\/p>\n
 T was_ having control in respect of all or any particular<\/p>\n
 of Religious and Charitable Institutions in the<\/p>\n
V State and the Deputy Commissioner of the District was %<\/p>\n
\/<\/p>\n
_\/.\/<\/p>\n
_5,<\/p>\n
the immediate controlling authority in respect. of all the
\nMuzrai Institutions in the District. Till the
\nthe affairs of the temple were running
\nhowever. dispute has arisen in August 199′?
\nas a group of people claiming to
\nSri.Somayaji Yandan a.lso  Saoiniayaji’ yvho
\nis one of the disciples” of  and
\n50′-it peethadhipathi.   an idol of
\nSr’1.Somayaji    Majority of the
\nDevotees  installation of any
\nnew idoldliln’     no religious sanction.
\nThe   this unauthorized move<\/p>\n
of few ind’iv_idualsf”\u00bbt,h’u’s felt that they need to get<\/p>\n
thernse’ive’s._organ’i2’ed and accordingly founded a trust<\/p>\n
  “lf3.\u00ab’edantha Deshika Trust’. The said Trust<\/p>\n
in’i-tiated’ proceedings under petitioner No.1 herein. One<\/p>\n
 of devotees is petitioner No.2 in his individual<\/p>\n
“‘-capacity. who proposes to protect the sanctity of the<\/p>\n
–“temple inasmuch as a few individuals have made<\/p>\n
attempt to install the new idol in the temple in the year
\n0<\/span><\/p>\n
,w’<\/p>\n
‘\/\/,<'''<\/p>\n
– 7 –\n<\/p>\n
1997. Respondent No.5 \u00bb~ ‘I’ahsild21.r passed an order on
\n22.08.1997 directing removal of the statue and t.ak1rigpit
\nout of the precinct of the temple i.e.,
\nThe said order of the 5″! respondent, was
\nsome of the devotees of
\nW.P.No.29’733\/1997. This Court.
\npetition on 10.1 1.1997 with
\nthat the Government   Cotznniivssioner
\nshall hold a prelirninaryjppheeirintgtwhether the<\/p>\n
idol of Sri.Sor1:_%;1f,}e\u00a7j\u00bbi:.  ‘Was–vtthen kept in the<\/p>\n
Navararigett’of.:iii;heuiftemple”  be permitted to be
\ncontinued in that. ‘p1_*ace\u00ab..or…t\u00a7vhether it should be moved<\/p>\n
of to the ‘Yag_;\u00a7isha*la’A”v_or””iouter prakara’ till the final<\/p>\n
‘xi”de<:isio'na.j-by'~–the Government. The copy of the order<\/p>\n
"p_a'sseVdrA  in this writ petition is at Annexure<\/p>\n
.C.l' V<\/p>\n
2  it   the meanwhile the Senior Agamika attached<\/p>\n
 office of the 2*" respondent. filed a report. A Copy<\/p>\n
 the report dated 04.10.1997 is at Annexure 'DZ<\/p>\n
1'<\/p>\n
,,\/.\/7<\/p>\n
According to the petitioners. 21 perusal of the said report 4;<\/p>\n
makes it abundantly clear that a new idol Cannot. be
\ninstalled in the temple. If at all, if, they propose to
\ninstall the said idol that shall be done by eonstru:et_i:iil_lgax
\nnew temple for the same. According to the<\/p>\n
this report was prepared on hp
\nreligious customs prevalent in the
\ntemple. On 29.05.1998.  " he
\nreport to the 131 respondents?\n<\/p>\n
by this Court in the   According to
\nthe said report._:j’the::’__’of Sri.Somayaji
\nAndariiyiias t’o”t~1’1″e temple and the same
\ncannotl-be\u00abl. at respondent No.6<\/p>\n
temple he op.inedthat, the idol should be returned<\/p>\n
 tolthle 5.-person Who’Wanted to donate the same. Copy of<\/p>\n
 the lsafiie Annexure  The Government passed<\/p>\n
 25.07.1998 directing that the idol of<\/p>\n
 .ASVri.S.ornayaji Andan shall not be installed in the temple<\/p>\n
C  a further direction to that group to have a separate<\/p>\n
Fternple. if they so desired for worshipping the said idol.<\/p>\n
Copy of the same is at Annexure ‘F. The ease of the<\/p>\n
i<\/p>\n
\/5″\n<\/p>\n
_ 9 _
\npetitioners is that. Annexure ‘F” had become final. The
\nsaid order at Annexure ‘F’ was challenged by sornje’*—-of
\nthe devotees before this Court in
\nand it was withdrawn on 27.05.1999, sinee
\nthe ease of the petitioner. that
\nsuccessfully persuaded the Czopvernmient
\nstand. Resultant effect was
\nanother order dated  earlier
\norder dat.ed jlaproduced at
\nAnnexure   of the idol of
\n that. keeping in
\nmind   both the groups. the<\/p>\n
required proi.eetion.,’-is”\u00bb_to”‘:be given so as to maintain<\/p>\n
 9.l3’33C9-Einid=U73′-flquim-5V’\u00a7””1lhe petitioner W Trust questioning<\/p>\n
 tkrinexure ‘G’ permitting the installation of<\/p>\n
  this a writ petition before this Court in<\/p>\n
 1999. The petit.ionerm’I’rust withdrew the<\/p>\n
 _w”ri’i–.pe’titaion inasmuch as the respondent – Government<\/p>\n
  agreed to reconcile and withdraw Annexure ‘G’.<\/p>\n
“”Thus. respondent No.1 passed another order on\ufb02<\/p>\n
::—-Z—-\/
\n, 3 ‘<\/p>\n
\u00abl0~<\/p>\n
27.01.2000 Withdrawing t.he order dated 01.06.1999 at
\nAnnexure ‘G’ and restoring the order dated <\/p>\n
T he resultant effect was that the idol in  _
\nnot be installed. This c.ontinued…fo_r’
\ntime. When things stood thus, after
\nafter the Government orderwdatedll
\nrespondent without any   have
\nchanged its order and  the principles<\/p>\n
of natural  order on
\n theminstallation of the
\n  Andan. According to<\/p>\n
the pe’titionei:  order at Annexure ‘A’<\/p>\n
_ cannot. be’ svustaindedVinasmuch as it is passed in<\/p>\n
it  Vioelation ofA.the’p’rii”1’ciples of natural justice. During this<\/p>\n
   the group professing the faith of Somayaji<\/p>\n
  a Pit. before this Court. in<\/p>\n
 AAW.P.No}6047\/2000. During the course of hearing of the<\/p>\n
it  Public interest Litigation. it was brought to the<\/p>\n
–Vinottice of the Court that the proposed idol to be installed<\/p>\n
in the temple was no more available in the temple<\/p>\n
\/<\/p>\n
\/,\/-\n<\/p>\n
inasmuch as it was stolen. It is to be noticed that in
\nthis regard a police complaint was lodged
\ninvestigation was done. This Court, l1aving.–\u00a77_egard—-._<\/p>\n
the fact that the idol itself was not .availal:a’1e”,’ theu <\/p>\n
View that the question of ent.eri;\u00abaiifii11g th_e”~ PIL’ :an’C\u00a7.;_’
\npassing an appropriate order__”W.ould:”be an ..v\u20acX\u00a7I’CiSf3′ in<\/p>\n
futility. Thus, the said,—l?zlL was—dhistnissedl.   <\/p>\n
5. It is not in disp1l1te_  have also
\nfiled a suit.  file of the Civil
\nJudge   for a decree\n<\/p>\n
 –theHrlein from installing the<\/p>\n
idol, which inlcludes group of supporters for<\/p>\n
  Sri.VS’o.rnayji: Andans idol in the temple. The<\/p>\n
 ‘saidsu_vit.eis.,:sti_ll pending. The main plank of attack on<\/p>\n
the”‘winipug;fne:cll’order is that the same is passed without.<\/p>\n
 notice the petitioners and also is in violation of the<\/p>\n
 pi’iii.ciples of natural justice.<\/p>\n
8. On notice the devotees of Sri.Somayaji Andan
\nhave entered appearance and filed statement of<\/p>\n
a<\/p>\n
\/K”\n<\/p>\n
objections. In the statement. of objections, they would
\ncontend that Srisomayaji Andan was a great
\nhis times and his works and teachings are  _
\nesteem and is a highly respect.ec_1_..saint..
\nthem he is being worshipped
\nopposed to the religious llbeliefs ‘of
\nIndeed. they would relyxon  orderl\\\\\\ppp%l\/ssed by
\nthe State that there slholIil’dll’irnpedirnent in
\ninstallation of  Andan in the
\nprecincts oi;  woiild state that the
\n  as t_o what is their
\nfundaIVnent;all  is being infringed by the<\/p>\n
impugned  question the locus of the<\/p>\n
pettitlionters*..in fi.ling”‘this writ petition. They would also<\/p>\n
 .tTo\u00ab..ll.thee~learlier proceedings, which are already<\/p>\n
elucidated’ the preceding paragraphs. It is submitted.<\/p>\n
 by  that the W respondent. having taken into<\/p>\n
[consideration the past four proceedings and various<\/p>\n
it ” -“other factors felt that it is iust and proper to accord<\/p>\n
permission for installation of the idol and has proceeded<\/p>\n
I<\/p>\n
J<\/p>\n
to pass the impugned order. They would justify the
\nimptigned order on the ground that it is just
\nproper.\n<\/p>\n
7. Mr.P.A.Kulkarni, learned;Jcodnsel;_appearing*for’1
\nthe petitioners submits    ‘
\nrespondents 6 to 8 in the    to
\nbring Utsava l\\\/Iurt,li\u00e9t_._”‘:ot   to be
\ninstalled in the,_ternple. the Utsava
\nMurthy of   installed in the
\n   faith of the temple
\nwould:,_Aidol is to be installed<\/p>\n
without.   Hence, in the absence of<\/p>\n
 p_  V’igraha;..the installation of the Utsava Murthy of<\/p>\n
‘ :Sri.Sorn’ayaj”iVAndan is not permissible according to the<\/p>\n
“religions7.”teif1:=et. He would contend that the respondents<\/p>\n
notwithistanding such strong objections from the Trust<\/p>\n
  the Temple authorities have chosen to install the<\/p>\n
v’7iUtS8.V8. Murthy in the Yagashala. The sum and<\/p>\n
substance is that in the absence of the Moola Vigraha,<\/p>\n
\ufb01r\/i<\/p>\n
the question of the Utsava Moorthy being installed does<\/p>\n
not arise.\n<\/p>\n
8. lVir.Subhash. learned counsel  it<\/p>\n
followers of Sri.Somayaji Andaiji
\nimpugned order. He would p~o_i’nted’iy.:j-iezfer
\nwrit petition wherein the    ‘the
\ninstallation of the idol  _’~’lllv”VVli”c”\u00ab.Gr0Vl\u00e9v1;AT11l’AYl1l\u20ac3T1t a\ufb02d
\nthat the GovernmentvAi,s…th–e   He would
\nalso press.   various Vedic
\nscholaVV1V”$-_.’VEV(:)’   it is permissible
\nto install–_  of Sri.Somayaji Andan. He<\/p>\n
further suubrnitls  PIL was dismissed having<\/p>\n
bec.’o_me’~ infruc:t.uousV since the idol was not found.<\/p>\n
‘Henvee”\u00ab.a\u00ab.v:le’ornp1aint was lodged and the case is<\/p>\n
.i’e.gist.ereudg–:  however a ‘C’ report was filed. The sum<\/p>\n
and .suhstanCe is that the petitioners cannot have any<\/p>\n
 ttoolbjeoetion for installation of the idol of Srisomayaji<\/p>\n
l  l.Andan. \ufb02<\/p>\n
%<\/p>\n
E
\n‘J1
\nE<\/p>\n
9. Indeed during the eourse of hearing. both the
\npetitioner as well as the respondent would
\nservice various literatures relating to the  u
\nof Vaikhansa. They have also it
\nmaterial as to where the idol of  <\/p>\n
be installed in t.he temple i1iV\u00bbq_ti’e.stion’;’ V<\/p>\n
10. Indeed wheizgjjthe  this
\nCourt on  by the
\nCourt that! it would be
\n hyllltaking opinion of the
\nleariied field.” lVIr.Subhash. learned
\ncounsel 7 and 8 has also<\/p>\n
filed; ad’men\u00e9ow-..indicVat.ing the names of five learned<\/p>\n
‘Sansl:.rit.’Scholars. Mr.P.A.Kulkarni, learned counsel<\/p>\n
lappearidngf—-fo:rthe petit.ioners conceded that the names<\/p>\n
of ltlfietxpscholars suggested are in fact the names of<\/p>\n
  Scholars in this field. It is also submitted by<\/p>\n
him that the petitioners would supplement a few names<\/p>\n
for this purpose. so that all the Scholars who would<\/p>\n
render their opinion to the Eindowment Commissionerg\ufb01<\/p>\n
\u00a5<\/p>\n
1<\/span><\/p>\n
m\u00a7(-}s<\/p>\n
who shall thereafter assess the same keeping in view
\nt.he opinion to be furnished by the
\nconsultation with the Official Agamika. testis’ _
\nfurther directed the Endo\\vme_11t_ 04
\nConsult the five Sanskrit
\nScholars whose names
\ncounsel for the petitioners  W\u20ac\u20ackS
\nfrom that date.  was
\ndirected to  thesaid Scholars,
\nobtain they;   subject matter
\ninvolv;\u00e9d”fa13xdf, the matter with the
\n to this Court. It was<\/p>\n
also ..observeVd~.V’tha’t f”i’il:)erty was reserved to the<\/p>\n
 Entd.o\\v’inei1t Corlirriissioner to hold a joint. meeting.<\/p>\n
  Thereafftertfthe..matt.er was listed on 17.04.2008.<\/p>\n
0′ ,. f’lAl,…f\\4’7\\fl’1en t.he matter was listed before the Court<\/p>\n
A   7.04.2008, it was suggestied by the learned counsel<\/p>\n
fgfor the petitioners as well as the respondents that the<\/p>\n
names of few more scholars would be given and so also<\/p>\n
their opinion with the Endowment Commissioner and<\/p>\n
K<\/p>\n
\/5<\/p>\n
installed. Thus. opined that the idol can be installed in<\/p>\n
the North~East corner of t.he temple.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
13. This report is seriously   ‘
\npetitioners inter alia
\nwas stated earlier inasmuch
\nMoorthy is installed. t.he    the
\nUtsava Murthy does  spleoifie ease
\nof the petitionffrs   is to be
\ninsta.lled. is    and not
\nMoola   was a great Scholar
\nand   be” the nephew of Saint<\/p>\n
Ramanuj”ae_hiaryxa.. is informed that the<\/p>\n
 temple ‘in  professes the faith of Vaikhansa<\/p>\n
‘Doc.trine\u00ab., vVail__<.ha.nsa claims to be a surviving school of<\/p>\n
Vedic  Taittiriya sakha of Krishna Yajurveda.<\/p>\n
 The Vaikhansa tradition say the sage Vikhanas. who<\/p>\n
A   manifestation of Brahma or Vishnu composed the<\/p>\n
aikhanasa Kalpasutra and taught 'four diseiples Atri.<\/p>\n
Bhrigu, Kasyapa and Mariehi. The History of<\/p>\n
Vaikhanasas is they originated as a group of ascetics. In 5<\/p>\n
a
\no
\n.\n<\/p>\n
the Manava Dharrnasastra. Mann discusses
\nvs.na1pr21st,11a, foresvdweller, the third of th_e.._ifo’u.r
\nasrarnas, stages of life and mentions a <\/p>\n
rule”.   _<\/p>\n
14. It is not in dispnt_e  pert1Szi:1V” of”
\npleadings as well as the
\nindicate that the \ufb01gn.’v.’Vvvi’severs.iVitoecasions
\nmodified and restored iVtVs:”oVrdeVrs:v.  order of
\nthe GovernVrrien:t.ts:i:.  by the
\npetitioners  tiling writ petitions.
\nIt is E’;-.V1Aso._  thatw respondent No.7 was<\/p>\n
instrumentals and E3.’.’t.A’LhV\u20ac.’,”i’IT instance the impugned order<\/p>\n
 is passed. Indeed according to the petitioners. no new<\/p>\n
 g_r’ou_ndvwss4Vn1ade out to upset the earlier order passed,<\/p>\n
  clearly stated that the ido} of<\/p>\n
‘V  Arldan cannot, be kept, in the temple<\/p>\n
  Indeed the moot. question. which fails for<\/p>\n
 eonsideration would be whether the 13’ respondent was<\/p>\n
 ‘justified in virtuaiiy upsetting the earlier order of<\/p>\n
declining to install the idol in the precincts of the\ufb02<\/p>\n
t.emple. Indeed a perusal of the impugned order
\ndiscloses that t.he same is passed without. <\/p>\n
to the petitioner or to the respondents. If  _
\nwhich is sought to be made aVailable__durihgth\u00bbe .4
\nof the hearing before this Courtilis
\nand also the subsequent
\nbefore t.he Endowment  prveport as
\ndirected by this Court’.4″vtI_ou’1~\u00a2l_v}1L1ial{\u00a7’v’jt’,&Vab_undantly clear
\nthat the 2nd   upon itself<\/p>\n
without  ‘t:h_e”x_S’eholars in this regard to
\npronojL1hHee”thiat ii7tlie”‘idpol of S1″‘i;S:omayaji Andan be kept<\/p>\n
in thezpree,inets  and it shall not harm the<\/p>\n
religiotis fe’eling,of anydodf the parties. Nevertheless. it is<\/p>\n
 to'”b<e noticed t,hat""p'ursuant, to the impugned order. the<\/p>\n
1 Vrerlidgiouspd  of the petitioners are hurt and hence<\/p>\n
they a;re.t;uestioni11g the impugned order before this<\/p>\n
 .. C.ourt;…- 1'<\/p>\n
15. Indeed the impugned order certainly can be
\nset~aside on this very short ground that the same is<\/p>\n
passed without, notice to the petitioners or even to the<\/p>\n
x<\/p>\n
,%’<\/p>\n
L<\/p>\n
respondents. Indeed t.he beneficiary of the earlier order
\nmust be put on notice before the said order is
\nany order is to be passed detrirnerital to
\nHence, I am of the View that    <\/p>\n
liable to be set–aside.\n<\/p>\n
16. Another reason. whVi’eh”13ersu’a.des
\nthe matter to the   the order
\npassed by this Court   joetitiori. Indeed
\nin the earli’ei\ufb01: devotees the 15*
\n  for Religious and
\nCharitabl_e–  required to consider the<\/p>\n
representa_tions’given. Vor, to be given by the petitioners<\/p>\n
 aaidjg objl’eetlioIis,: if any. filed or to be filed by<\/p>\n
‘ re–s.por1d\u00abe1its’–4\u00a7 to 65 and also t.o examine the documents<\/p>\n
 Ina\u00a7.”L:beT::.V;droduCt\u00e9d in that behalf and after hearing<\/p>\n
as lzedeems fit. A direction was issued to submit a<\/p>\n
 report. to the Government t.o enable the Government: to<\/p>\n
take a decision as to whether the gift. of the idol of<\/p>\n
Srisornayaji Andan should be aeeepted by the temple<\/p>\n
or not and if accepted. how and where it should l <\/p>\n
‘V3-\n<\/p>\n
installed. This Court also observed that the 1*’
\nrespondent is at liberty t:o obtain the opiriion\/s
\nindependent Agamika in addition to the <\/p>\n
Agamikas in the matter.   _<\/p>\n
17. A perusal of the_ri._ranpulgn.edz
\ndisclose that such an exerciseylldhiais been  all
\nthe material. which  before
\nthe Competent A . _AuthVo.ri.ty V._l  be produced
\nbefore this  that all the material
\nis re(;tuire'(i\u00bb.VV’toil:   Considered by the
\n   that on the basis of<\/p>\n
the report” _ of2″iltilehl\ufb02llScholars, the Endowment<\/p>\n
Co\u00bbn31missioner”1.f1as sent. a report. indicating that there is<\/p>\n
._im_pedi.tftent. on the installation of the idol of<\/p>\n
‘Sri’;VSornayja}Vie:=Andan in the temple in question. I am of<\/p>\n
 the View’ that the matter requires to be re~heard by the<\/p>\n
 State ~ respondent No. l.\n<\/p>\n
T he report filed by the Commissioner before this<\/p>\n
Court and the objections Filed by the petitioners to the<\/p>\n
said report also shall ‘form part of the p1’OCC\u20ac’,di1′}g –<\/p>\n
before the W respondent before any decision is taken in
\nthis regard i.e., Where to install the idol, whet.hervw\u00a7.n’-the
\ntemple precincts or elsewhere.\n<\/p>\n
18. Hence, the following order  *  * <\/p>\n
(a) Petition is allowed,’ <\/p>\n
(‘0) The im u “1’1\u20acCl 0rde_rl”‘\u00bbvvat\u00bb._p  if? ‘A’ is
\nquashed. ‘l’he_zfrn2–itte;.;< "s_1_;a_nd,s remitted to<\/p>\n
respondent No.1 for fresh c:~onsifder:at.ion.<\/p>\n
(C) The.  of the report of
\n  an*dl}vthe opinion of the<\/p>\n
  1*" respondent. can<\/p>\n
 'call for ':"rTje;~s}:\n<\/p>\n
_ [(1) T  respo’nd’e’nt. shall take into consideration
\n  varilousliterature on the subject and decide
\n wi’iether Utsava Murthy can be installed<\/p>\n
  the M00121 Murthy.\n<\/p>\n
2 {ev)T,l’he 15″ respondent shall give a personal hearing
\nto the petitioners and respondents and their<\/p>\n
representatives.\n<\/p>\n
EL<\/p>\n
(f) St.at,us~quo as on 30.09.2005 to continue.<\/p>\n
Ruke is made absoiute.\n<\/p>\n
SPS<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Vedanta Deshika Trust Bangalore vs State Of Karnataka By Its Secy To … on 9 February, 2010 Author: Ajit J Gunjal IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 9″‘ DAY OF FEBRUARY 20 BEFORE THE HONBLE MR. JUs’r1cE:aAJ1’r’J.eU’1\u00a7ee;iArf WRIT PETITION No.22722O;2e05(G1x\u00bbq41\u00a7\/geefa; BE IWEEN : 1. Sri.Vedanta Deshika’ ‘1.Trust’,”W […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-176225","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nVedanta Deshika Trust Bangalore vs State Of Karnataka By Its Secy To ... on 9 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vedanta-deshika-trust-bangalore-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-secy-to-on-9-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vedanta Deshika Trust Bangalore vs State Of Karnataka By Its Secy To ... on 9 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vedanta-deshika-trust-bangalore-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-secy-to-on-9-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-02-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-28T21:10:42+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vedanta-deshika-trust-bangalore-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-secy-to-on-9-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vedanta-deshika-trust-bangalore-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-secy-to-on-9-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vedanta Deshika Trust Bangalore vs State Of Karnataka By Its Secy To … on 9 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-28T21:10:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vedanta-deshika-trust-bangalore-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-secy-to-on-9-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3052,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vedanta-deshika-trust-bangalore-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-secy-to-on-9-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vedanta-deshika-trust-bangalore-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-secy-to-on-9-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vedanta-deshika-trust-bangalore-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-secy-to-on-9-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Vedanta Deshika Trust Bangalore vs State Of Karnataka By Its Secy To ... on 9 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-28T21:10:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vedanta-deshika-trust-bangalore-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-secy-to-on-9-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vedanta-deshika-trust-bangalore-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-secy-to-on-9-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vedanta-deshika-trust-bangalore-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-secy-to-on-9-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vedanta Deshika Trust Bangalore vs State Of Karnataka By Its Secy To … on 9 February, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Vedanta Deshika Trust Bangalore vs State Of Karnataka By Its Secy To ... on 9 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vedanta-deshika-trust-bangalore-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-secy-to-on-9-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vedanta Deshika Trust Bangalore vs State Of Karnataka By Its Secy To ... on 9 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vedanta-deshika-trust-bangalore-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-secy-to-on-9-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-28T21:10:42+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vedanta-deshika-trust-bangalore-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-secy-to-on-9-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vedanta-deshika-trust-bangalore-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-secy-to-on-9-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vedanta Deshika Trust Bangalore vs State Of Karnataka By Its Secy To … on 9 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-28T21:10:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vedanta-deshika-trust-bangalore-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-secy-to-on-9-february-2010"},"wordCount":3052,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vedanta-deshika-trust-bangalore-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-secy-to-on-9-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vedanta-deshika-trust-bangalore-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-secy-to-on-9-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vedanta-deshika-trust-bangalore-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-secy-to-on-9-february-2010","name":"Vedanta Deshika Trust Bangalore vs State Of Karnataka By Its Secy To ... on 9 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-28T21:10:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vedanta-deshika-trust-bangalore-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-secy-to-on-9-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vedanta-deshika-trust-bangalore-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-secy-to-on-9-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vedanta-deshika-trust-bangalore-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-secy-to-on-9-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vedanta Deshika Trust Bangalore vs State Of Karnataka By Its Secy To … on 9 February, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/176225","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=176225"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/176225\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=176225"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=176225"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=176225"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}