- 1 - WP Nos.40336-40344/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 13 TH DAY OF MARCH 2014

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.ABDUL NAZEER

WP Nos.40336-40344/2013 (GM-R/C) BETWEEN

1. P SRINIVAS UPADHYAYA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O LATE GURURAJ ACHARYA, R/AT "HARI NIVAS" KELAPARKALA, POST, HERGA VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

2. M MANJUNATHA UPADHYAYA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O LAKSHMINARAYANA UPADHYAYA, R/AT "SRI RAKSHA" MAHALINGESHWARA TEMPLE ROAD, PARKALA POST,HERGA VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

3. P KEERTHI KUMAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O K VASUDEVA NAIK, DOOR NO. 6-64,SHIVA KRUPA, OPP:SHIVAM LODGE, NEAR BUS STAND, PARKALA POST,HERGA VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

4. SUKHANANDA SHETTIGARA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O LATE PADMANABHA SHETTIGARA, R/AT MARKET ROAD, PARKALA POST,HERGA VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT - 2 - WP Nos.40336-40344/2013

5. V PRASAD SHETTY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O LATE V RAMANNA SHETTY, R/AT KANNARPADY ROAD, KADEKAR VILLAGE POST KADEKAR, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

6. VANAJA S MABEN AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, W/O SANJEEVA MABEN, R/AT "JAIHIND BUILDING" GANDHI MAIDAN, PARKALA POST,HERGA VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

7. K.SARALA SHETTY AGED 62 YEARS, W/O K.SHIVARAMA SHETTY, RESIDING AT "MANASA" PARKALA POST, HERGA VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT.

8. SURESH NAYAK AGED 32 YEARS, S/O NARAYANA NAYAK, RESIDING AT "BHAVANA NILAYA" PARKALA POST, HERGA VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT.

9. RAMACHANDRA BAYARI AGED ABOAUT 64 YEARS, S/O LATE KRISHNA BAYARI, PRADHANA ARCHAKA, SRI MAHALINGESHWARA TEMPLE, RESIDING AT PARKALA, PARKALA POST, HERGA VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT. ... PETITIONERS (By Sri: S K ACHARYA, ADV.)

- 3 - WP Nos.40336-40344/2013

AND

1. ZILLA DHARMIKA PARISHATH , UDUPI-576 101

2. MEMBER SECRETARY & ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT UDUPI DISTRICT UDUPI -576 101 .. RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI B S SACHIN, ADV. FOR R1; SRI VIJAYAKUMAR.A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R2 )

***

THESE WPs IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF PRAYING TO QUASH THE

IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.8.2013 PASSED BY THE

RESPONDENTS VIDE ANN-A AND TO DECLARE THE SAME

AS ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ETC.

THESE W.Ps. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 4 - WP Nos.40336-40344/2013

O R D E R

The petitioners were appointed as the members of the Managing

Committee of Parakala Sri Mahalingeshwara Temple, Udupi Taluk and

District by the Zilla Dharmika Parishat, Udupi District, under Section

25 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable

Endowments Act, 1997 (‘the Act’ for short). The 1st respondent passed an order at Annexure ‘A’ dated 26.8.2013 dissolving the Committee of

Management of the aforesaid temple. The petitioners have called in question the validity of the said order in these writ petitions.

2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners were appointed by the Zilla Dharmika Parishat as the members of the Committee of Management of the temple. The

Committee has been managing the affairs of the temple without any blemish. The respondents have dissolved the Committee without assigning any reason and without holding an enquiry as provided under

Section 28 of the Act .

4. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the term of the members of the Managing - 5 - WP Nos.40336-40344/2013

Committee is subject to the pleasure of the Zilla Dharmika Parishat or for a period of three years, whichever is earlier unless in the meantime, the Committee is dissolved or has ceased to function. In support of his contention, he has drawn my attention to Section 26 of the Act. Since they were holding the office at the pleasure of the Zilla Dharmika

Parishat, the question of holding an enquiry contemplated under section

28 of the Act does not arise.

5. I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned

Counsel made at the Bar and perused the materials placed on record.

6. Section 25 of the Act authorizes the Zilla Dharmika Parishat to constitute the Committee of Management of the temple. Section 26 of the Act provides for term of office of the Committee of Management and election of Chairman. Sub-section (1) of section 26 of the Act states that subject to the pleasure of the Rajya Dharmika Parishat or

Zilla Dharmika Parishat as the case may be, members shall hold office for a term of three years unless in the meanwhile the Committee is dissolved or has ceased to function.

7. It is clear from this provision that a member of the committee has to hold the office subject to the pleasure of the Zilla Dharmika - 6 - WP Nos.40336-40344/2013

Parishat or for a period of three years whichever is earlier unless the

Committee is dissolved or ceases to function in the meanwhile.

8. A perusal of the order impugned makes it clear that the petitioners have not been terminated from the membership of the

Committee. The Committee of Management itself has been dissolved.

Section 28 of the Act states that Rajya Dharmika Parishat or Zilla

Dharmika Parishat as the case may be, shall have power to dissolve a

Committee of Management including a member or hereditary trustee, if after holding an enquiry in accordance with sub-section (2), it is satisfied that the committee has failed to discharge the duties or perform the function in accordance with the provisions of the Act or the

Rules made thereunder or disobeyed any lawful orders issued under the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder by the State

Government or the Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner or Assistant

Commissioner or committed any malfeasance or misfeasance or is guilty of breach of trust or misappropriation in respect of the properties of the institution or endowment.

9. In the instant case, it is not the case of the respondents that the

Committee of Management has failed to discharge its duties or - 7 - WP Nos.40336-40344/2013

disobeyed the lawful orders or committed malfeasance, misfeasance, etc., It has dissolved the committee without assigning any reasons. It is also clear that no enquiry has been held in accordance with sub-section

(2) of Section 28 of the Act . Thus, the impugned order has been passed in violation of section 28 of the Act .

10. In the result, the writ petitions succeed and are accordingly allowed. The order passed by the respondents at Annexure ‘A’ dated

26.8.2013 is hereby quashed. It is hereby clarified that this order will not preclude the competent authority from taking action against the members of the Committee in accordance with law. No costs.

Sd/- JUDGE Yn.