IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOs.13943-13951 OF 2016 (GM-R/C) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. P. RATHNAKAR RAJ, AGED 79 YEARS, SON OF S.A.K.BALLAL, RESIDING AT PADUBIDRI BEEDU, PADUBIDRI – 574 111, UDUPI DISTRICT. 2. SRI. SRINATH HEGDE, AGED 49 YEARS, SON OF LATE S.KARUNAKARA HEGDE, RESIDING AT NADSAL GUTHU, PADUBIDRI, POST PADUBIDRI, UDUPI DISTRICT – 574 111. 3. SRI.A.DHANPAL SHETTY, AGED 50 YEARS, SON OF LATE M.NARAYANA SHETTY, RESIDING AT AVARAL KANKANA GUTHU, POST AVARAL, UDUPI DISTRICT – 574 103. 4. SRI. SHEKAR SHETTY, AGED 62 YEARS, SON OF LATE VASU SHETTY, RESIDING AT BAGGEDI GUTHU, NADSAL, PADUBIDRI, POST:PADUBIDRI, UDUPI DISTRICT. 5. SRI. RAJESH DEVADIGA, AGED 40 YEARS, 2 SON OF HARIYAPPA DEVADIGA, RESIDING NEAR BRAHMASTHANA, NADSAL VILLAGE, PADUBIDRI, POST PADUBIDRI, UDUPI DISTRICT – 574 111. 6. SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR, AGED 38 YEARS, SON OF LATE MANJUNATH ACHAR, RESIDING AT SUSHEELA M NIVAS, BANGRE ROAD, PADUBIDRI, POST PADUBIDRI, UDUPI DISTRICT – 574 111. 7. SRI. P.GANAPATHI KAMATH, AGED 46 YEARS, SON OF LATE PRABHAKAR KAMATH, RESIDING NEAR MAHALINGESHWARA TEMPLE, SRINIVAS, KELAGINAPETE, PADUBIDRI – 574 111. UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT. 8. SRI. JAYANTH SHETTY, AGED 48 YEARS, SON OF LATE BABU SHETTY, RESIDING NEAR S.L.V.J., PADUBIDRI – 574 111, UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT. 9. SRI. SUDHAKAR MADIVALA, AGED 46 YEARS, SON OF LATE RAMAYYA MADIVALA, R/AT ‘SRI.ADISHAKTHI SHANNIDHI”, NADSAL VILLAGE, PADUBIDRI – 574 111, UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. GAYATHRI BHAT FOR SRI. P.P.HEGDE, ADVOCATES) 3 AND: 1. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SRI.MAHALINGESHWARA MAHAGANAPATHI TEMPLE, PADUBIDRI – 574 111, UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS IN KARNATAKA, CHAMRAJPET, BENGALURU – 560 018. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI. 4. VINAYKUMAR SORAKE, MINISTER – URBAN DEVELOPMENT, DISTRICT INCHARGE, UDUPI. 5. PRAKASH SHETTY, BANJARA RESTAURANT, KUMARAKRUPA ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 021. 6. P.RAGHAVENDRA NAVADA, NEAR M.G.TEMPLE, PADUBIDRI – 574 111, UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT. 7. MURALINATHA SHETTY, SRI. LEELA, KELAGINAPETE, PADUBIDRI – 574 111, UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT. 8. Y.SUKUMAR, MEERA COMPLEX, NEAR BUS STAND, 4 PADUBIDRI – 574 111, UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT. 9. NAVEEN CHANDRA J SHETYY, ASHA SADANA, KARKALA ROAD, PADUBIDRI – 574 111, UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT. 10. SUCHARITA, NEAR LAKSHMAN AMINKOTYARA, PADUBIDRI – 574 111, UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT. 11. RAVINDRANATH G.HEGDE, ANUGRAHA, PADUBIDRI – 574 111, UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT. 12. VIJAYA AMIN, SRI.GARBHA, KARKALA ROAD, PADUBIDRI – 574 111, UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT. 13. PRASHANTH SHETTY, NAGASHREE OIL MILL, NEAR SLV TEMPLE, PADUBIDRI – 574 111, UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT. 14. BHASKAR K., VARSHINI DHAMA, MADHWA NAGARA, BENGRE NADSAL VILLAGE, PADUBIDRI – 574 111, UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT. 15. MADHAVA C SHETTY, NEAR BANTS BHAVAN, PADUBIDRI – 574 111, UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT. 5 16. SUKUMAR SHRIYAN, C/O SAGAR, VIDYAMANDIR, PADUBIDRI – 574 111, UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT. 17. P.VISHWANATHA HEGDE, PETE MANE, PADUBIDRI – 574 111, UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT. 18. RAJESH P., ADVOCATE, SANJEEVI KALLATTE, PADUBIDRI – 574 111, UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT. 19. P.K.SADANAND, GONDU POOJARI HOUSE, KADIPATTA, PADUBIDRI – 574 111, UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.H.C.KAVITHA, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE FOR M/S. SHETTY AND HEGDE ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES FOR R5 TO R19; R4 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION /PROCEEDINGS DATED 01.10.2015 PASSED BY R-2, VIDE ANNEXURE – A AND ETC., THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: 6 O R D E R Mrs. Gayathri Bhat, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Mrs. H.C. Kavitha, learned Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mrs. Farah Fathima, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 to 19. The petitions are admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matters are heard finally. 2. In these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have prayed for following reliefs: ‘[i] issue a writ of certiorari, quashing the Notification/proceedings dated 1.10.2015 bearing No.ADM 8 /CR 82/2014-15 passed by Respondent No.2/Commissioner, Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable 7 Endowments in Karnataka, Bengaluru, which is produced at Annexure-A. [ii] Declare that Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Amendment Rules 2012, vide Notification No.RD 148 Musevi 2011 Bangalore dated 27.01.2012, which is produced herewith as Annexure-F as unconstitutional and illegal and consequently strike down the same in its entirety; [iii] And/or in the alternative, declare that Rule 40B of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Amendment Rules, 2002 which is introduced by Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Amendment Rules 2012, vide Notification No.RD 148 Musevi 2011, Bangalore dated 27.01.2012, which is produced herewith as Annexure-F as unconstitutional and illegal and 8 consequently strike down the same in its entirety; [iv] And grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted that a Committee was constituted by order dated 1.10.2015 for a period of three years. The aforesaid period has already come to an end by efflux of time. Therefore, nothing survives so far as challenge to the order dated 1.10.2015 is concerned. 4. It is well settled law that this Court does not decide an academic issue. The issue with regard to challenge to the validity of the Rules contained in relief clauses[ii] and [iii] have been rendered academic in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, I deem 9 it appropriate to dispose of the writ petitions with liberty to the petitioners to assail the validity of the Rules in an appropriate petition in accordance with law. Accordingly, writ petitions are disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE AN/- .