1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 17 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.S.PATIL REVIEW PETITION No.302/2014 BETWEEN: SRI VASUDEVA RAO S/O LATE K.KRISHNA RAO AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT “SRI KRISHNA” KADANDALE VILLAGE & POST MANGALORE TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT … PETITIONER (BY SRI ARIGA K.A., ADV.,) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT MULTISTORIED BUILDINGS, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS IN KARNATAKA CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE-560 018 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS IN KARNATAKA MANGALORE TALUK 2 DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT 4. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS IN KARNATAKA MANGALORE TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT 5. THE TAHSILDAR MOODABIDRI MANGALORE TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT 6. SRI K.SUDARSHAN SHETTY S/O RAMANNA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS “KADANDALE GUTTU HOUSE” POST KADANDALE-574 007 MOODABIDRI FIRKA MANGALORE TALUK … RESPONDENTS THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 22/11/2011 PASSED IN W.P.NO.35503/2011, ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE. THIS REVIEW PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This review petition is filed seeking review of the order dated 22.11.2011. There is a delay of 852 days in filing this review petition. Petitioner has also filed an 3 application seeking permission to prosecute the review petition. 3. The matter is heard on merits as well as on the application filed. 4. The writ petition was filed by the 6 th respondent herein challenging the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment in Karnataka appointing Administrator to Sri Subramanya Swamy Temple, Kadandale Village, Mangalore Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District. The writ petitioner contended that he was the managing trustee since 1987 and therefore, before passing the impugned order appointing the Administrator, it was imperative for the respondents to notify the petitioner and hear him. This Court having held that after the expiry of the term of the managing committee, the Administrator was duly appointed to manage the affairs of the temple found that there was no merit in the writ petition. 5. In para 5 of the order, it was observed that in view of the amendment brought to Section 25 and 4 keeping in mind the establishment of Zilla Dharmik Parishad for South Canara District, it is just and proper to direct the Zilla Dharmik Parishad to take steps to constitute a managing committee for managing the affairs of the temple. It was ordered accordingly. However, as the religious activities of the temple had to be conducted in accordance with certain religious rituals by following certain religious traditions, at the request made by the petitioner, in para 7 it was observed that there could not be any impediment for the Tahsildar to take the assistance of the petitioner who was well conversant with the religious and other activities of the temple for effective management of the temple. The review petitioner was arraiged as respondent No.6 to the writ petition. However, subsequently, the writ petitioner got him deleted from the array of parties and thereafter, the writ petition was disposed of. 6. The review petitioner now claims that he was the managing trustee immediately prior to the appointment of the Administrator and therefore, such 5 privilege could not have been conferred on the writ petitioner to lend his assistance in carrying out the activities of the temple. The learned counsel submits that the review petitioner also may be permitted to lend such assistance to the Administrator in religious matters. 7. The petitioner herein did not challenge the order appointing the Administrator to manage the affairs of the temple. The observations made in para 7 of the order under review was only to ensure that the Tahsildar was not handicapped in carrying out the religious activities of the temple until the constitution of a regular committee as ordered and directed vide observations made in para 5 of the order. Therefore, I do not find any justification in the grievance made by the review petitioner. None of his rights are affected. The term of the committee having been completed, the out going committee member cannot claim any role in the management or affairs of the temple. 6 8. Hence, I do not find any merit in this review petition and the same is dismissed. As the petition is dismissed on merits applications filed for condonation of delay of 852 days and seeking permission to prosecute the Review Petition are also dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE PB .