In the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru Dated This the 08

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.15319 AND 15359-15361 OF 2010 (GM- R/C) BETWEEN: 1. Vasudeva Asranna, Son of Late Srinivasa Asranna, Aged about 68 years, 2. Srihari Narayanadasa Asranna, Son of Sadananda Asranna, Aged about 37 years, 3. Ananthapadmanabha Asranna, Son of Sadananda Asranna, Aged about 43 years, 4. Kamaladevi Prasad Asranna, Son of Sadananda Asranna, Aged 41 years, All Hereditary Archaks of Sree Durga Parameshwari Temple, Kateel 574 148, Mangalore Taluk, 2 Dakshina Kannada District. …PETITIONERS (By Shri P.S.Rajagopal, Senior Advocate for Shri K. Puttegowda, Advocate) AND: 1. Deputy Commissioner for Hindu Religious Institutions And Charitable Endowments, Mangalore District, Mangalore 575 001. 2. Sree Durga Parameshwari Temple Development Overseeing Committee, Represented by its Member Secretary/ Administrator, Sri Durga Parameshwari Temple, Kateel 584 149. Mangalore Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District. 3. Sree Durga Paremshwari Temple, Kateel 574 148, Mangalore Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District, Represented by its Administrator. 4. Commissioner for Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments for the State of Karnataka, Tippu Sultan Palace Road, Chamarajpet, Bangalore 560 018. 3 5. State of Karnataka, By its Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Revenue, M.S.Buildings, Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (By Shri T.L.Kiran Kumar, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent Nos.1, 4 and 5) ***** These Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the records leading to the order dated 17.12.2008 and proceedings of the meeting held on 10.3.2010. Quash i) order dated 17.12.2008 vide Annexure-D to the W.P. passed by the fifth respondent and etc; These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the court made the following: O R D E R The petitioners claim to be hereditary archaks of Shri Durga Parameshwari Temple, Kateel. The temple is said to be one of the ancient and revered institutions where large number of devotees perform diverse sevas to Lord Durga Parameshwari. One such seva is performance of marriage in the temple. It is claimed that this seva was being performed since time immemorial. 4 The first respondent, on the directions of the second respondent is said to have ordered that the seva of marriage that is being performed in the temple be discontinued except to the extent of permitting the couple to exchange garlands. The said decision was communicated to the petitioners on 20.4.2010 and therefore, the present petition. 2. The petitioners contend that Shri Durga Parameshwari Temple is one of the ancient Hindu temples in Dakshina Kannada District. This is situated in the middle of a river and is a very sacred place for Hindus. Legend has it that the Goddess slew the dreaded Raksasa s, Shumbha and Nishumbha and later she vanquished Arunasura . To kill Arunasura, Devi had taken the form of a huge furious bee, that is ‘Bhramara and had stung him repeatedly till his last breath. Thereafter, on the prayers of Devas and the sages, the Devi emerged in Soumyaroopa in the middle of the river Nandini and is known as Shree Durga Parameshwari to whom the temple is dedicated. One of the beliefs amongst the devotees is that any dosha 5 which had delayed the marriage would be remedied by performing certain sevas at the temple and therefore it is not uncommon that devout Hindus take a owe to perform marriages in the temple as a seva. This seva is being performed since times immemorial. In the marriages performed at the temple, there are two types- one is by exchange of garlands before the deity and another is marriage by agnisakshi, that is by performing Homa in the temple. Both these types of marriages are covered by the marriage seva and the type of marriage in each case is decided by the devotees concerned depending upon their family customs and beliefs. The temple is managed by a Board of Trustees, consisting of 2 trustees, one each from Kudethoor Guttu family and Asranna family, to whom the petitioners belong. The right of the petitioners to be appointed as hereditary trustees is claimed to have been recognized and it was accordingly managed by them. The State Government, it is alleged, in abuse of its power, superseded 6 the Board of Trustees and placed the temple under the management of an Administrator. The temple was originally said to be governed by the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1929. Thereafter, the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 came into force which governed the temple and said Act record that one Sri Krishna Asranna was a trustee of the temple since 1807 and after him in the year 1860, his son Sri Lakshminarayana Asranna was appointed as a trustee. Similarly, one Ramanna Shetty Kudethoor Guttu was appointed as a trustee on 1.10.1888 and thereafter his brother Koti Shetty was appointed as a trustee in his place on 11.7.1920. The register also records that both the trustees continue to hold offices on hereditary right. The said register further records that the archaka is of kateel Asranna family and a hereditary family office holder. Under Section 11 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1997Act’ for brevity), which replaced the 1951 7 Act and which has been implemented only in part, the position of the archak in so far as customs or traditions of the temple has been made pre-eminent. Archak or if there are more arachaks than one, the pradhan archak shall be the ex-officio member of the Committee of management and his opinion on any question or custom or tradition prevails. Therefore, the devotees wanting to perform marriage in the temple approach the archak, ascertain the availability and suitability of the date and time, decide whether the marriage should be by exchange of garlands or by performing homa and accordingly fix the date and time for the marriage. For the seva of marriage, the devotee performing marriage in the temple has to pay a fee of Rs.301/- to the temple. In addition, such devotees do sometimes bear the expenses of ‘ Annadana’, that is providing free meals to all the visitors and devotees on the day the marriage. The temple maintains a Register of marriages held at the temple and the Register is maintained under section 4 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which would contain the names and addresses of the 8 bridegroom, the bride, parents or guardian of the bride or bridegroom and the officiating priest viz., the archak. It is stated that the fifth respondent by order dated 17.12.2008 appointed a Committee to oversee developmental works taken up by the temple, acting under the 1997 Act. Apart from this provision, there is no indication of the manner in whch the State has exercised power in authorising and appointing an overseeing committee. It transpires that a meeting was convened by the first respondent ostensibly calling it as a meeting of the Development Overseeing Committee, but actually consisting of large number of persons who are neither members of the Development Overseeing Committee nor having any locus standi in law. The Deputy Commissioner, who was a member of that committee, considered one of the items on the agenda, namely, the marriage seva performed in the temple and had taken a decision to bar all marriages performed in the temple premises, except exchanging 9 garlands. It is in this background that the petitioners are before this court. It is pointed out that from the tenor of Section 77 of the 1997 Act, under which the said Overseeing Committee has been appointed, would not enable the State to impose any such Committee on the temple, even though Act No.27/2011 sought to amend the various provisions of the 1997 Act, particularly Section 76(2)(t) was incorporated, which provided for the management and preservation, development of properties of notified institutions including the formation of a development committee. Hence, it is pointed out by the learned Senior Advocate that it is for the first time that any such provision was incorporated for the appointment of a Development Committee and when the development committee was named in the present case on hand, there was no such provision in existence and therefore Section 77 could not be drawn into service to seek imposing any such Committee on the temple. 10 Insofar as amended Section 76 is concerned, Act No.27/2011 and Act No.13/2012, which also made further amendments to the 1997 Act, was under challenge before a division bench at the Dharwad bench and the division bench having allowed the petitions challenging the said amendment acts and having struck down the amendments, the position is that the 1997 Act as it originally stood is operational, further subject to the circumstance that the matter is seized by the Supreme Court insofar as the challenge to the 1997 Act itself, which was struck down by division bench of this court and the Supreme Court in turn having granted stay of that judgment has however, vacated the stay insofar as it pertains to section 25 of the 1997 Act. In any event, the provision for appointment of a Development Committee found traceable only to the amendment act no.27/2011 and that act having been struck down, there is no power available to the State to appoint any such Development Committee and therefore any decision taken by the said Development Committee, especially doing away 11 with the ancient traditions and customs of performing the marriages in the temple is illegal and without authority of law.

Load more