1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA W.P. Nos. 108683-198684/2015 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: 1. VISHNU LAKSHMINARAYAN BHAT, A/A 58 YEARS, HEREDITARY ARCHAKA/ PRIEST OF SHRI VINAYAK DEV TEMPLE, IDAGUNJI, HONNAVAR TALUK, U.K. DIST. 2. LAKSHMINARAYAN VISHNU BHAT, A/A 22 YEARS, HEREDITARY ARCHAKA/ PRIEST OF SHRI VINAYAK DEV TEMPLE, IDAGUNJI, HONNAVAR TALUK, U.K. DIST. BOTH R/O IDAGUNJI, HONNAVAR TALUK, U.K. DIST. - PETITIONERS (BY SRI. A.P. HEGDE JANMANE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT, KARWAR. 2. CIRCLE POLICE INSPECTOR, HONNAVAR, U.K. DIST. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANKI POLICE STATION, HONNAVAR, U.K. DIST. - RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. K. VIDYAVATI, A.G.A.) 2 THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICES ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 DATED 06.07.2015 VIDE ANNEXURES J & K AND ETC. THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING RESERVED FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER 1. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs. I. Quashing the impugned notices issued by Respondent No.3 dated 06.07.2015 (Annexures J & K) in the interest of justice and equity; II. To direct the respondents to refrain from interfering with the hereditary archakship rights of petitioners as declared by District Court, Karwar and allow the petitioners to continue with the exercise of their right within the precincts of Shri Vinayak Dev temple of Idagunji, in the ends of justice; and III. Pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case including the award of costs in the interest of justice and equity. - - - 3 2. This Court had directed the learned Additional Government Advocate to take notices for the respondents. SuBsequently, the respondents through the Additional Government Advocate have filed their statement of oBjections. 3. I have heard the detailed arguments addressed By the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Additional Government Advocate. I have carefully perused the records produced for consideration of this Court. 4. The Brief factual matrix as could Be seen from the records are that, the petitioner no.1 is no other than the father of the petitioner no. 2 and they claim to Be the hereditary archaks of Sri Vinayaka Temple, Idagunji of Honnavara Taluk, Uttara Kannada District. Father of the petitioner no.1 By name Lakshminarayana son of Vishnu Bhat has filed a suit along with his two Brothers 4 in O.S. No. 52/1994 Before the Civil Judge Court at Karwar for declaration that they are the hereditary archaks of Sri Vinayaka Temple, Idagunji, that they were not appointed By anyone and their family are entitled for performing pooja, seva, utsava and all viniyogas and also to receive emoluments from the devotees and also for consequential injunction against the temple trustees and its erstwhile memBers. SuBsequently the said suit was renumBered as O.S. No.10/2001. The said suit came to Be decreed in favour of plaintiffs therein granting the reliefs as prayed for. Being aggrieved By the said judgment and decree the defendants (not parties Before this Court) have preferred an appeal Before the District Judge, Karwar in R.A. No. 66/2006 and R.A. No. 72/2006. Those appeals were cluBBed and common judgment was rendered vide judgment dated 04.01.2008 wherein the appeals were dismissed. Against the said judgment and decree again 5 the aggrieved defendants have preferred R.S.A. Nos. 131/2008 and 132/2008 Before this Court and vide judgment dated 15.07.2008 they were also dismissed confirming the judgment and decree passed By the District Court, Karwar. Being aggrieved By the said judgments in R.S.As the defendants preferred Civil Appeals Before the Hon’Ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.5899 and 5900/2008. These factual aspects are not in dispute. 5. As could Be seen from the orders of the Apex Court, though the Apex Court has not granted stay of the judgment passed in the Regular Second Appeals, But on 22.09.2008 after hearing the counsels, the Apex Court has passed the order that: “The petitioners have sought stay of the judgment of the High Court dated 15.07.2008 in which the order of the first appellate Court has stood merged. 6 We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the caveators-respondents. We are of the view that interest of justice would be served if purely as a temporary arrangement pending disposal of the appeal, the respondents are permitted to have the emoluments which is recognized and granted by the first appellate Court (affirmed by High Court) but only through the temple management and not directly. Any dakshina in the form of tastik, phalavali, padiakki and panchakajjaya, which the first appellate Court has recognised to be the emoluments of the respondents shall be received only through the temple management. The Archaks appointed by the trustees, if they are in service, shall work under the respondents and their emoluments will be paid by the temple.” - - - Again on 21.11.2008 the Apex Court has passed the following order. “The interim order dated 22.09.2008 makes it clear that only the respondents have been permitted to perform pujas. They cannot therefore depute anyone 7 else to do discharge their functions. This Court also made it clear that Archaks appointed by the trustees shall be permitted to work under the respondents. This Court has directed that the respondents shall receive the emoluments only through the temple management. This clearly means that for whatever they receive from the management, the respondent should give acknowledgement receipt. Learned counsel for the respondents stated that respondents have discontinued collecting money directly from devotees and that they are no longer issuing receipts. The said statement is recorded. In view of the above, no modification of the interim order is called for. Accordingly, I.As. 3, 4 & 5 are disposed of.” - - - On 07.10.2013 also the Apex Court has passed the following order. “There is inter section dispute amongst trustees and also there is dispute between the parties on the aspect of the management of the temple. One party says that management is now vested in the Government (Endowment Commissioner), but the other party denies this. 8 In view of this, let notice be issued on the applications to the State of Karnataka through Endowment Commissioner as party respondent. Amended cause title shall be filed within one week. Notice shall be issued by the Registry to the newly impleaded respondent returnable on December 6, 2013. In the meanwhile, reiterating earlier orders, it is directed that respondent Nos.1 to 5 shall not receive money from the devotees and shall perform pujas in this regard as per schedule settled by the temple management and as directed in the earlier orders of this Court. If there is any breach, the aggrieved party may make representation to the Superintendent of Police, Uttar Kannada, Karwar, Karnataka. It is further observed that the Superintendent of Police, Uttar Kannada, Karwar, Karnataka shall inquire into the representation so received and take appropriate action to ensure that the orders of this Court are obeyed by all concerned.” (emphasis supplied) - - - 6. The facts stand thus, the order passed By the Apex Court dated 07.10.2013 (underlined portion) 9 clearly disclose that respondent nos.1 to 5 shall not receive money from the devotees, shall perform pujas in this record as per the schedule settled By the temple management and as directed in the earlier orders of the Court. If there is any Breach, the aggrieved party may make representation to the Superintendent of Police, Uttara Kannada and the Superintendent of Police shall enquire into the representation and take appropriate action to ensure that the orders of the Court are oBeyed By all the concerned. It clearly disclose that By means of giving such direction to the Superintendent of Police the Hon’Ble Apex Court itself has Been visualizing the affairs of the temple. 7. In this Background it appears the Police have issued a notice on 06.07.2015 (impugned notice under this petition) to the present petitioners stating that there is violation of order of the Apex Court. The petitioners Being not respondents Before the Apex Court were 10 participating in the puja kainkaryas which was witnessed through videograph. Therefore, though the petitioners were not archaks of the said temple, they have performed puja and thereBy violated the orders of the Apex Court dated 07.10.2013. Therefore, the Police have requested them to give explanation in writing to the said notice. The petitioners, in fact, have given a reply to the said notice dated 08.07.2015 stating that they have received notice issued By the Police and they have also admitted pendency of the case Before the Apex Court But they say that father of the petitioner no. 1 who was respondent no.1 Before the Apex Court, died and thereafter the petitioners were not Brought on record as LRs Before the Court. As such, the said appeal aBated and came to an end against them. Therefore, they have got right to perform hereditary puja, etc. After receiving of the said reply, it appears the Police have not taken any action against them. This 11 particular aspect is also clearly reiterated in the oBjection statement filed By the respondents herein.