- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20082 WP No. 16481 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO.16481 OF 2025 (GM-R/C) BETWEEN: THE MANAGING TRUSTEE SRI MARIAMMA TEMPLE, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT, BY K.B. GOPALAKRISHNA, S/O K.B. ANNAPPA SHERIGAR, KASABA VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-576 104. …PETITIONER (BY SRI M.E. NAGESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS, RAJATHADRI, UDUPI DISTRICT-576 101. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS RAJATHADRI, UDUPI DISTRICT-576 101. 3. THE TAHASILDAR KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-576 104. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA) Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20082 WP No. 16481 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DATED 20.05.2025 IN NO.DC UDP-19011(12)/63/2023 E-121988 AS PER ANNEXURE-E. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner, who is the hereditary trustee of the Mariamma Temple has called in question the order at Annexure - E whereby proceedings are initiated whereby order is passed appointing the Tahsildar as an Administrator in exercise of Section 29 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 (for short "the Act"). 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the question of appointment of Administrator under Section 29 of the Act would arise only where there is a dissolution of the committee in terms of Section 28 and that the grounds - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20082 WP No. 16481 of 2025 made out under Section 28 leading to dissolution of the management requires that there has to be an enquiry preceding such decision to dissolve. Reliance is placed on the judgment in (2015) 3 Karnataka Law Journal 501 in the case of The Managing Committee vs. The Zilla Dharmika Parishath and Deputy Commissioner. 3. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that there are serious allegations as regards the management of the Temple and grounds are made out to dissolve the Committee in terms of Section 28. 4. Heard both sides. 5. Section 28 of the Act reads as follows: "28. Power to dissolve the Committee of Management. (1)The prescribed authority shall have power to disslove a Committee of Management if after holding an enquiry in accordance with sub-section (2), it is satisfied that the committee has; (a) failed to discharge the duties or perform the functions in accordance with the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder; or (b) disobeyed any lawful - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20082 WP No. 16481 of 2025 orders issued under the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder by the State Government or the Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner; or (c) committed any malfeasance or misfeasance or is guilty of breach of trust or misappropriation in respect of the properties of the institution or endowment; (2) Where the prescribed authority proposes to take action under sub-section (1) it shall frame the charge against the Chairman and give him an opportunity of meeting such charge or testing the evidence adduced against the charge and of adducing evidence in favour of the Committee; and the order of dissolution shall state every charge framed against the Committee, explanation offered by the committee and the finding on such charge together with the reasons therefor . (3) Pending enquiry under sub-section (2) the prescribed authority may suspend the Committee and appoint an administrator in accordance with section 29. (4) Any person aggrieved by an order under this section may, within thirty days from the date of communication of the order appeal.- (a) to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal Act, 1976 (Karnataka Act 10 of 1976), where the prescribed Authority is the Commissioner. (b) to the Commissioner, if the order passed is of the Deputy Commissioner, and (c) to the Deputy Commissioner, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20082 WP No. 16481 of 2025 if the order passed is of the Assistant Commissioner. (5) The appellate authority may after holding an enquiry and so far as possible within six months from the date of appeal pass such order as it deems fit, and such order shall be final." 6. Section 29 of the Act reads as follows: "29. Appointment of Administrator. The prescribed authority shall appoint an officer of the State Government as Administrator in place of the Committee of management dissolved or suspended under sub-section (1) or (3) of section 28 or after the expiry of the term of office of the Committee under section 26 and till a new Committee of Management is constituted or for a period of six months whichever is earlier." 7. The perusal of the above provisions would indicate that if any decision is to be taken to dissolve that Committee of management under Section 28 of the Act on the grounds made out under that section, it has to be preceded by holding an enquiry. That is the same view taken by this Court in the case referred to above reported in (2015) 3 Karnataka Law Journal 501. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20082 WP No. 16481 of 2025 8. In light of the same and the submission made by Additional Government Advocate, the order at Annexure-E is to be treated as a Show Cause Notice. 9. Petitioner to mark their presence before the Deputy Commissioner and make out their reply within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. 10. The state to clearly make it known to the petitioner as to the procedure under Sections 28 and 29 that it intends to follow on the first date on which the petitioner appears before the respondent - Authority and thereafter proceed further. All contentions are kept open. 11. Needless to state no decision can be taken to interfere with the management of the temple till final decision is taken after hearing the petition. Accordingly, petition is disposed off. SD/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE DHA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3