N.K. Patil, J.@mdashThe appellants, questioning the correctness or otherwise of the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition Nos. 14251 to 14253 of 2012 (GM-R/C), dated 28th March, 2013, have presented these writ appeals. In the impugned writ petitions, the first respondent herein-Sri Prasanna Veeranjaneya Swamy Trust had sought for quashing the Government notification dated 11th April, 2012 issued by the first appellant vide Annexure-A to the writ petitions and also the notification dated 13th April, 2012 issued by second appellant vide Annexure-B to the writ petitions. The said writ petitions were disposed of, quashing Annexures-A and B, with an observation that the Administrator in-charge of management of Temple shall take decision depending upon the facts and circumstances to open hundis, as and when they become full and shall get the hundi amount/offerings counted and deposited in transparent manner with due notice to the first respondent-Trust and private respondents herein and shall also maintain accounts as per law. Being aggrieved by the quashing of Annexures-A and B by the learned Single Judge, the present appeals are filed.
2. The only grievance of the appellants in these appeals is that, the first respondent-Sri Prasanna Veeranjaneya Swamy Temple was established in the year 1970 at Mahalakshmi Layout, Bangalore and the idol of Lord Anjaneya is carved out on a single natural stone and large number of devotees are worshipping the said deity and the Temple is situated at a height of about 30 ft. above the ground level. The idols of Lord Ganesh, Lord Rama, Goddess Sita, Goddess Lakshmi are also installed in Sri Prasanna Veeranjaneya Swamy Temple premises and they are also being worshipped by the devotees.
3. It is the specific case of the first respondent herein, Sri Prasanna Veeranjaneya Swamy Trust that, it is registered in the year 1981 and there were no allegations as to the mismanagement of the Temple. When things stood thus, the Temple is taken over by the State Government by notifying the said Institution under the provisions of Sections 42 and 43 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 (''Act'' for short), without affording any opportunity, whatsoever to the said respondent. Therefore, the notifications dated 11th April, 2012 and 13th April, 2012 vide Annexures-A and B are contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Rules, 2002 framed thereunder. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent-Trust filed writ petitions before the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petitions, quashing Annexures-A and B with certain observations, as stated supra. Being aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeals are filed by the State Government and other authorities.
4. The submission of the learned Government Pleader appearing for appellants is that, the notifications at Annexures-A and B to the writ petitions are in consonance with the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules and also on the basis of the complaint given by the devotes and other interested persons that the Trust is misusing the money collected from the devotees and are utilising the same towards other developmental activities without prior permission from the Government, contrary to the by-laws of the Trust. Therefore, there was no other option for the appellants but to proceed further on the basis of the complaint received and to issue the notifications for taking over the administration of the Temple. Therefore, the said notifications at Annexures-A and B to the writ petitions are strictly in consonance with the relevant provisions of the Act and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside. After careful consideration of the submission of the learned Government Pleader appearing for appellants and after perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, it is seen that, there is no error or illegality as such committed by the learned Single Judge in quashing Annexures-A and B to the writ petitions, inasmuch as the learned Single Judge, has after critical evaluation of the entire material available on his file, recorded a specific finding of fact at paragraph 12, internal page 17 of his order, wherein it is stated that the learned Government Advocate fairly submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the Commissioner has either himself enquired or has he authorised any Officer subordinate to him to hold enquiry into the objections filed by the Trust as contemplated under Section 43(6) of the Act. Further, the records reveal that the enquiry is conducted by the Special Deputy Commissioner based on the direction of the Commissioner in different context and not strictly under Section 43(6) of the Act and therefore, the learned Single Judge opined that the Commissioner should have either appointed Enquiry Officer subordinate to him to conduct enquiry or he himself should have conducted enquiry as contemplated under Section 43(6) of the Act. The learned Single Judge further opined that the said procedure is not followed and therefore the first respondent-Trust did not have an opportunity to contest its case before the Enquiry Officer. The Commissioner merely on the basis of other enquiry reports conducted by either the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner based on the letter of the State Government or based on the representations of the public at large, has proceeded to pass the order, taking over the management of the Temple. Therefore, since the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 43(6) of the Act was not followed by the Commissioner, all further proceedings subsequent to the stage of Section 43(5) of the Act are vitiated. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge quashed the notifications at Annexures-A and B to the writ petitions with certain observations. The reasoning given by the learned Single Judge at paragraphs 11 and 12 of his order is strictly in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules. Hence, we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge nor the appellants have made out a good case for interference. Accordingly, the appeals filed by appellants are dismissed as devoid of merits.
In view of disposal of appeals on merits, I.A. filed for stay does not survive for consideration and is accordingly, disposed of as having become infructuous.
