In the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated this the 05th day of June, 2012 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.VIKRAMAJIT SEN, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA WP No.829/2012 (GM - R/C) BETWEEN : 1 SRI NARAYANA UMASHIVA UPADHYAYA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, S/O SRI UMASHIVA UPADHYAYA, R/O KOTI THIRTHA ROAD, NEAR STEE VENKATARAMANA TEMPLE, GOKARNA, KUMTA TALUK, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT 2 SRI UMAKANTHA MANESHWARA GOPI AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O SRI MANESHWARA GOPI TRUSTEE, SHRI MAHAGANAPATHI TEMPLE, GOKARNA, UTTARA KANNADA DISRICT 3 SRI GOPALA @ RAJAGOPALA M ADI AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, S/O SRI M.ADI, GOPALA NILAYA, CA STREET, GOKARNA 581326, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT 4 SRI VIJAYASHANKARA HOSAKATTA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, S/O SRI SHANKARA HOSAKATTA, R/O THALAGERI, SANIKATTA POST, MOGERI KATTE, GOKARNA, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT 2 5 SRI SANTOSH SADANANDA MAHALE AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O SRI SADANADA MAHALE, R/O HITHALAMAKKI, THORKI POST, KUMTA TALUK UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT 6 SRI MASTI MARKUNDIAGERE AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O MARKUNDIGERA R/O BANGLEGUDDA GOKARNA 581326 KUMTA TALUK, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT 7 SRI GAJANANA ANANTHA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/O ANNANTHA SHETTY MEMBER, GRAM PANCHAYATH, MELINAKERI, GOKARNA, KUMTA TALUK, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT 8 SRI SHIVANADA MANESHWARA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O MANESHWARA GOWDA R/O MELINAKERI, GOKARNA-581326, KUMTA TALUK, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT 9 SRI MOHANDAS S GOWDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O S GOWDA, R/O DEVANANGI, THADADI POST, GOKARNA, KUMTA TALUK, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT ...PETITIONERS ( By Sri.SUBRAMANYA S.JOIS, Sr.Cl. For Smt. B S VIJAYALAKSHMI, Adv. ) 3 AND : 1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPRTMENT M.S.BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGLORE 560001 2 THE COMMISSIONER FOR RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS IN KARNATAKA, MALAI MADEHSWARA BUILDING, ALUR VENKAT RAO ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE-560018 3 THE DEPUTY COMMISIONER UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT KARWAR 4 THE ASSISTANTE COMMISSIONER KUMTA SUB-DIVISION, KUMTA 5 RAMACHANDRAPUR MUTT HANIYA POST, HOSANAGAR TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER ...RESPONDENTS ( By Sri. K.G.RAGHAVAN, Sr.Cl. For Sri.K GOVINDARAJ FOR R5 SRI.B.VEERAPPA, AGA FOR R.1 TO 4. ) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the entire records relating to the letter dated 03.11.2011 of the 2nd respondent (Vide Annexure-F) and the 3rd respondent's dated 10.11.2011 vide Annexure-G peruse the same and direct by the issuance of a writ of Mandamus or prohibition, commanding the respondents 1 to 4 that the ancient public temples of Sri.Maha Ganapathi, Sri.Bhadrakali, Sri.Tamragowri (Sri.Parvathi Devi) and Sri.Venkataramana, situated in Gokarnakshetra, Kumta Taluk, Uttara Kannada District, shall not be denotified and that none of the said temples be handed over transferred to the control administration or management of the 5th respondent in any manner and that the same be maintained as notified institutions under the control of respondents 1 to 4 in general and the 2 nd respondent in particular for the benefit of every person belonging to the Hindu Religion. This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the Chief Justice made the following: 4 O R D E R VIKRAMAJIT SEN, C.J. (Oral) : We have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the parties. It is contended on behalf of respondent no.5 that the petitioner in this writ petition is virtually restraining the taking of a decision, which would ordinarily be not maintainable. Sri.Subramanya Jois, learned Senior Counsel however, submits that there is an apprehension that the decision taken shall be quickly given effect to. It is in these circumstances, that we dispose of the Writ Petition by directing respondent nos.1 and 2 to take a decision after giving all the concerned an opportunity of hearing. However, the said decision would not be implemented for a period of sixty days after it has been given due publicity. It is clarified that if the decision is to the effect that denotification ought not to be done, then no implementation thereof would arise. Writ petition is disposed of in these terms. Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE mv.