1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 28 TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

WRIT PETITION No.7858 OF 2008 (GM-R/C)

CONNECTED WITH

WRIT PETITION No.17011 OF 2010 (GM-R/C)

IN W.P.No.7858/2008

BETWEEN:

Anandalwan, Son of Narasimihachar, Aged 30 years, Residing at Vangipuram Nambi Mutt, Raja Street, Melukote, , . …PETITIONER

(By Shri Srinivasa Raghavan, Advocate for M/s. Indus Law)

AND:

1. State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary, Revenue Department, 2

M.S.Building, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi, 560 001.

2. The Deputy Commissioner, Mandya District, Mandya.

3. The Commissioner for Hindu Religious And Charitable Institutions, Government of Karnataka, Chamarajpet, Bangalore 560 018.

4. The Local Executive Officer, Sree Cheluvanarayanaswamy Temple, Mulukote, Pandavapura Taluk, Mandya.

5. Sri. T.R., Son of Late T. Ramaswamy , Aged about 64 years, No.214, 10 th B Cross, 29 th Main, I phase, J.P.Nagar, Bangalore 560 078.

6. Sri. D.N. Narayana Iyengar, Son of Late Narasimha Sesha Iyengar, Aged about 62 years, Residing at No.202, 2nd Block, R.T.Nagar, Bangalore.

3

7. Sri. R. Iyengar, Son of Late Sri. Ramanujamuni Narayana Iyengar, Aged about 71 years, Residing at Kunigal Street, Melukote Town, Mandya District. …RESPONDENTS (By Shri N. Devadas, Senior Advocate for Shri M.R.Rajagopal, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6; Shri T.L.Kiran Kumar, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4; Shri Abhinav .R, Advocate for M/s. Kumar and Kumar for Respondent No.7) *****

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the order of the third respondent dated 20.5.208 vide Annexure-E and etc;

IN W.P. No.17011/2010

BETWEEN:

Sri. Narasimha Iyengar, Aged about 60 years, Son of Late Sri. Aparameya Iyengar, Raja Street, Melukote, Pandavapura, Mandya District. …PETITIONER

(By Shri Abhinav .R, Advocate for M/s. Kumar and Kumar)

AND:

1. State of Karnataka, 4

Represented by its Secretary, Revenue Department, M.S.Building, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore 560 001.

2. The Deputy Commissioner, Mandya District, Mandya.

3. The Commissioner for Hindu Religious And Charitable Institutions, Government of Karnataka, Chamarajpet, Bangalore 560 018.

4. The Local Executive Officer, Sree Cheluvanarayanaswamy Temple, Mulukote, Pandavapura Taluk, Mandya. …RESPONDENTS

(By Shir T.L.Kiran Kumar, Additional Government Advocate for Respondents)

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to declare that the order of the third respondent dated 20.5.2008, at Annexure-B, the order of the second respondent, dated 29.5.2008 at Annexure-C and the order of the fourth respondent dated 30.5.2008 at Annexure-D are arbitrary, illegal, null and void and etc;

These Writ Petitions coming on for Hearing this day, the court made the following: 5

O R D E R

These petitions are heard and disposed of by this common order as they pertain to the same subject matter.

2. The petitioner in WP 7858/2008 seeks to challenge the validity of the order of the third respondent dated 28.5.2008, the order of the second respondent dated 29.5.2008 and the order of the fourth respondent dated 30.5.2008. In so far as these orders direct the adornment of an ornament comprising of

Vadagalai nama on the deity of Shri Cheluvanarayanaswamy

Temple and Shri Yoganarasimhaswamy temple at Melukote,

Mandya District.

The petitioner in WP 7858/2008 claims to be a devotee of Shri Cheluvanarayanaswamy temple and

Yoganarasimhaswamy temple at Melukote. He is an archak performing services at Shri Ramanujacharya Sannidhi, which is a part of Shri Cheluvanarayanaswamy Temple at Melukote.

He is said to belong to the Tengalai sect of Shrivaishnavas and 6

his forefathers have been offering services at the aforesaid temple and he is interested in all customs, traditions, rituals and ceremonies followed over centuries, being continued to be practiced at the temple.

It is stated that Shri Cheluvanarayanaswamy temple at

Melukote and all adjoining temples at Melukote is a major muzarai Institution and the Government is in-charge of the administration of the temple. Shri Yoganarasimhaswamy temple is located on the hillock close to the main temple of Shri

Cheluvanarayanaswamy. Both the said temples, namely, Shri

Cheluvanarayanaswamy temple and Shri

Yoganarasimhaswamy temple have been in existence for several centuries.

The said temples are said to have gained prominence during the period of Shri Ramanujacharya who had codified and set out the rituals and ceremonies to be followed and made provisions for its proper administration and was also responsible for the rejuvenation of the temples and the main 7

deity of Shri Cheluvanarayanaswamy at Melukote was installed by him.

It is stated that Ramanujacharya was the propounder of

Shrivaishnava tradition and his followers were called

Shrivaishnavas. The followers of this tradition adorned a mark on their forehead, also called ‘nama’. The mark consists of while lines in a ‘Y’ shape and a red line in between them. The nama in that form was adorned by Shri Ramanujachaya, as is evident from his idols, which were consecrated during his time as well as thereafter in several temples, including Tirupathi,

Srirangam, and Sri Perumbudur as well as at Melukote. The same is also evident from the paintings of Shri Ramanujacharya found on the walls of several temples. The temples established by him and the idols therein also had the same nama.

According to the petitioner, several centuries thereafter, closer to the last century, a certain practice arose amongst a section of Shrivaishnavas of adorning the nama in a different 8

manner, namely, the white line being in a ‘U’ shape with the red line in between. Therefore, there arose a division amongst

Srivaishnavas and persons those adopting the ‘U’ mark being called as “Vadagalais’ and those adopting the ‘Y’ shape being called the “Tengalais”.

3. It is the claim of the petitioner that Shri

Cheluvanarayanaswamy temple at Melukote, including Shri

Yoganarasimhaswamy temple were following the Tengalai tradition even from the time of Shri Ramanujacharya. The

Vadagalai sect mainly were followers of Parakala Mutt (One of the several mutts which propagate and follows Srivaishnava philosophy) . The head of the Parakala Mutt became the Chief

Advisor of the Maharaja of and utilizing his influence over the Maharaja, had illegally introduced Vadalagalai nama into Shri Cheluvanarayanaswamy and Shri

Yoganarasimhaswamy temples. However, the Tengalai tradition that existed in Shri Cheluvanarayanaswamy temple continued predominantly, except for certain instances of illegal 9

introduction of Vadagalai nama in some places. These had been met with stiff resistance. One such instance was that in

Shri Yoganarasimhaswamy temple, where Tengalai tradition has been followed from time immemorial, the main deity

Shri Yoganarasimhaswamy itself does not have any nama, but an ornament called as ‘Koramba’ is placed on the head of the deity. And it is claimed that on this ornament, there used to be an ornament which used to have a Tengalai nama and when placed on the forehead of the deity, would show a silver ornament containing Tengalai nama on the forehead of the deity

Shree Yoganarasimhaswamy.

However, at one point of time, one of the officials of the temple, who happened to belong to Vadagalai sect, and performed services in Shri Yoganarasimhaswamy temple, took advantage of his position and illegally placed a silver ornament comprising of a Vadagalai nama on the deity of Shri

Yoganarasimhaswamy. This was immediately protested. But in view of the influence of the Vadagalai people in the 10

administration of affairs, no action was taken to remove the illegally placed silver Vadagalai nama.

It is in this manner that though the temple was of

Tengalai nature, the Vadagalai nama was introduced. It is stated that the Government had also issued Circulars indicating that in the event of any doubt or dispute as to the nama, which is to adorn the idol, a “Thilaka”, consisting of a single red line should be placed and the same will be the case in case of any ornaments, vessels, chariots etc.

According to the petitioner, in the year 1970, a new

Gopuram was sought to be renovated, in so far as Shri

Yoganarasimhaswamy temple was concerned . A Vadagalai organization in Calcutta that took up the work sought to introduce such nama on to the Gopurams.

At this point, people belonging to the Tengalai sect objected to the same and petitioned the Government of such illegal introduction. The Government had failed to take any action. A civil suit was filed in the year 1974, which was 11

subsequently renumbered as OS 863/1999. The said suit was for a declaration that the temple of Shri Yoganarasimhaswamy at Melukote was following Tengalai tradition as to the namas and for issuance of a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the Vadagalai namas introduced in the

Gopurams and for a prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from introducing any Vadagalai namas and for a direction that Tengalai namas be put on such Gopurams. The

State Government was one of the defendants in the suit, so was the head of the Parakal mutt.

The suit was ultimately disposed of on 26.2.2000 after contest. The judgment and decree held that the temple of

Shri Cheluvanarayanaswamy at Melukote was adopting

Tengalai type of namas even before the year 1814 and introduction of Vadagalai nama was recent. It also concluded that Shri Yoganarasimhaswamy temple at Melukote had followed only Tengalai tradition. It was noticed by the court that silver ornamental Vadagalai namas had been 12

unauthorisedly put up by a Peshkar and that if the silver ornament containing the namas was taken out, the forehead of the deity did not bear any namas. It was also held that the temples of Shri Cheluvanarayanaswamy and Shri

Yoganarasimhaswamy were Tengalai in character and that some Vadagalai namas had come to be introduced only at the instance of Parakal Swamy, as he was the Rajguru of the

Maharaja of Mysore and he had been in charge of the administration of the temple. It was also found that the introduction of Vadagalai nama was new and that the namam had also been introduced illegally in the Gopurams undergoing renovation. The court observed that though Vadagalai namas were newly introduced, any direction to remove the same could hurt the feelings of Vadagalai sect leading to unrest and therefore, a mandatory injunction to remove the Vadagalai namas from the Gopurams was not granted. But, it was observed that since the temples followed Tengalai tradition, a 13

prohibitory injunction has to be granted restraining the defendants from introducing Vadagalai namas in these temples.

An appeal was preferred against the said judgment in

RA 76/2000 before the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior

Division), . The plaintiffs in the suit had filed

Cross objection insofar as the denial of mandatory injunction as sought for. The appeal however, was said to have been dismissed for non-prosecution. The Cross objection was still pending.

It is in this background that a theft had taken place of the ornament, a Vadagalai nama which was being placed on the deity and therefore a dispute arose as to the nama to replace the said ornament.

According to the petitioner, as per the Muzarai Manual, which contains Circulars issued from time to time providing for such a situation, where a single line nama is to be placed on the deity when there is a dispute as to a particular nama to be introduced. And the judgment of the Civil Court also 14

indicating the same, there was no scope for introduction of

Vadagalai nama on the deity.

However, pursuant to the judgment of the Civil Court, respondents no.2, 3 and 4, in exchange of communication between them, had relied on a legal opinion furnished in respect of the scope of the judgment and decree aforesaid and the fourth respondent had issued an endorsement indicating that a silver ornamental nama obtained by the Muzarai department from a donour, to be placed on the deity of Shri Yoga

Nagarasimhaswamy, which is the immediate cause for filing the present petition.

It is pointed out in the text of the judgment and decree of the civil court as to the nama to be placed on the deity and there is no scope for Vadagalai nama to be placed, as directed by respondents no.2, 3 and 4. In any event, before any such directions could be issued, it was incumbent on the authorities to have heard the persons interested, such as Tengalai sect, who are directly affected by such a direction and in the face of 15

the judgment which is in their favour, as aforesaid. Hence, the present petition.

The learned Counsel, Shri Srinivasa Raghavan appearing for the petitioner would enlarge on the aforesaid sequence of events, to demonstrate that the temple having been declared as being Tengalai in character and rituals and practices, which include placing of the nama and a single line nama being placed on the deity would not affect the feelings of either sect and it ought to have been continued. Whereas the respondents have now taken the initiative of directing a Vadagalai nama to be placed, only on the footing that in the past, a n ornament in the character of a Vadagalai nama was placed on the deity and the same practice being continued would not affect any other sect at all, is an erroneous conclusion, as the said ornament was illegally introduced in the first place and the mere continuance of the said ornament being placed on the deity, did not afford a permanent license to utilize the same and the said ornament also having been stolen and no longer in existence, it was 16

impermissible in another ornament being placed, which was endowed as a donation from a person belonging to the

Vadagalai sect. In the face of the judgment of the Civil Court, the respondents having permitted such practice of placing the ornament fashioned as a Vadagalai nama on the deity, would be counter to the judgment of the Civil Court and the Muzarai

Manual, which dictates that in the event of a dispute, it is a single line nama that should be placed. Therefore, the learned

Counsel would submit that the petition be allowed on that short ground, namely, that the directions issued by the respondents are wholly illegal and run counter to the judgment of the civil court as well as the Muzarai Manual.

4. The learned Senior Advocate Shri N.Devadas appearing for respondents 5 and 6, on the other hand, questions the very maintainability of the petition and it is pointed out that the petitioner in WP 7858/2008 is an archak admittedly employed by the department and unless the petitioner lays 17

down office, he would not be in a position to question the directions issued by the authorities.

Secondly, it is pointed out that, in the light of an alternative remedy being available to him, the present writ petition is liable to be rejected as not maintainable.

5. It is pointed out that since the Commissioner has diligently followed the mandate under Section 58 of the

Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable

Endowments Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1977

Act’, for brevity), there is no scope for challenging such action on the part of the respondents. Secondly in terms of section 63 of the 1977 Act, since the commissioner is endowed with the power of revision in respect of any orders passed by the respondents, the petitioner ought to have exhausted that remedy before filing the present petition.

It is emphasized that even according to the petitioner, for over 100 years, it was the Vadagalai nama that adorned the deity and the same being continued, as opined by the 18

authorities, is a decision taken after much contemplation and there is no illegality to be found in the said decision. The judgment of the Civil Court declaring that the temple is of

Tengalai character does not extend to placing of namas on the deities as well. There is no such specific direction issued by the

Civil Court. Therefore, the authorities having proceeded on the basis that it was the Vadagalai nama which adorned the deity for over 100 years and therefore, the same being continued, would be appropriate and it ought not to cause anguish to the petitioner or his sect.

It is in this vein that the learned Senior Advocate would seek to take this court through the very judgment of the Civil

Court to demonstrate that there is no violation of the judgment at all and on the other hand, it is the firm opinion of the Civil

Court that any Vadagalai nama that is in existence on the

Gopurams of the temples and elsewhere ought not to be disturbed in the light of avoiding any unrest or hurt to the feelings of the Vadagalai sect, who are considerable in number. 19

Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that there is no warrant for considering the petition on merits, especially since the same is filed by an incompetent person and in the face of alternative remedy being available to the petitioner, the petition ought to be rejected.

6. In the connected petition in WP 17011/2010, the petitioner is also insisting that it is Tengalai nama that should adorn the deity and not Vadagalai nama, as directed by the respondents.

At the outset, it is to be noticed that the judgment of a court is not to be interpreted, as the judgment would speak for itself. It is indeed disturbing therefore, that the respondents have chosen to seek the opinion of a legal counsel, as to the scope and effect of the judgment of the Civil Court in OS

863/1999. This is not welcome. The trial court has framed specific issues and has answered the same assigning reasons and the findings are not of such complicated nature, which would require interpretation of the same by a legal counsel, 20

which is sought to be diligently followed by the respondent – authority. The issues framed by the trial court are as follows:

“ 1. Do plaintiffs prove that the temple of Sri. Thirunarayana and Sri. on the hills at Melkote are of Thengalai in character and on rituals? 2. If not whether defendants prove that suit temples are of Vadagalai in character? 3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the silver Vadagalenamamm on the face of the idol Sri. Yoganarasimha innovation caused at the instance of the Parakalaswamy is only at Mysore and only installed by the Maharaja of Mysore as the Parakalswamy was his guru.

4. Do plaintiffs prove that the Thengale Character of the temple was been recognished and acted upon by the Government and the deciples? 21

5. Do the plaintiffs prove that under the guise of renovation the 2 nd defendant has caused rithals to the nature and character of the temple to make it appear as a Vadagale temple? 6. Do defendants prove that the suit is not properly constituted? 7. Do defendants prove that the notice is not valid? 8. Are the plaintiffs entitled to a declaration as prayed for? 9. Are the plaintiffs entitled to a mandatory injunction as prayed for? 10. Are the plaintiffs entitled to a permanent injunction as prayed for? 11. To what reliefs are the parties entitled?”

7. The primary issues raised having been answered in favour of the plaintiffs, would indicate that they have secured a positive judgment in their favour in so far as the namas are concerned and the mere fact that there was an ornament in the 22

form of vadagalai nama that was placed on the deity for a long time, by itself, did not gain prominence insofar as the issue as to whether the temple was Tengalai in nature or Vadagalai in nature. In view of the specific finding that the temple is of a

Tengalai nature, it would follow that if there is no nama placed on the forehead of the deity and if there was dispute as to the nature of nama to be placed, the Muzarazi Manual clearly indicates that it shall be a single red line nama that shall be placed on the deity to avoid conflict between the two sects.

Therefore, the original ornament that was placed on the deity for a long time having been lost, it could not be replaced by a fresh or new ornament with a Vadagalai nama. When there is a dispute as to what nama should adorn the deity and the issue having been adjudicated and if there is a finding that the temple was of Tengalai nature, that it should be a single red line nama that should adorn the diety . It would follow that this would put the issue at rest. However, it was necessary for the respondents to have heard the concerned who would have been in a position 23

to assist the authorities in arriving at a just decision as to the nama to be placed on the deity in the light of the judgment of the Civil Court and other material that may be available in arriving at a just conclusion. It is evident that there was no opportunity granted to any interested party in addressing the authorities before such direction was issued, which is certainly loaded in favour of the Vadagalai sect. This has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

8. Therefore, in order to ensure that a fair decision is taken in the light of the established facts and in the light of other circumstances, which may be brought up by interested parties, it would be appropriate if interested parties are given a hearing by the respondent – authorities before taking a final decision as to the nama that should adorn the deity and in the meanwhile, if single read line nama is permitted to be placed on the deity, there can be no ruffled feathers and it should not offend any of the two sects. 24

Consequently, the petition in WP 7858/2008 is allowed.

Annexures E, F and G are quashed. The respondents are directed to afford an opportunity of hearing to all the interested parties and thereafter to pass appropriate orders.

In the light of the above, the writ petition in

WP 17011/2010 stands disposed of on like terms.

Sd/- JUDGE

nv