- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14469 WP No. 100309 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 100309 OF 2025 (GM-R/C) BETWEEN: 1. BASAVARAJ S/O. BHIMAPPA PUJARI, AGE: YEARS, OCC: TRUSTEE OF SRI.HANAMANT DEV OF KALLOLI, R/O. WARD NO.8, KALLOLI-591224, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. BHIMASHI S/O. APPAYYA PUJARI, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: TRUSTEE OF SRI.HANAMANT DEV OF KALLOLI, R/O. WARD NO.8, KALLOLI-591224, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. 3. SHRINIVAS S/O. DONKAPPA PUJARI, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: TRUSTEE OF SRI.HANAMANT DEV OF KALLOLI, R/O. KALLOLI-591224, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. 4. RAMAPPA S/O. KANAPPA PUJARI, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: TRUSTEE OF SRI.HANAMANT DEV OF KALLOLI, R/O. WARD NO.8, KALLOLI-591224, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. 5. SMT. SATTEVVA W/O. TAMMANNA PUJARI, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: TRUSTEE OF SRI.HANAMANT DEV OF KALLOLI, R/O. KALLOLI-591224, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. 6. SUBHAS S/O. HANAMANTPUJARI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: TRUSTEE OF Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14469 WP No. 100309 of 2025 SRI.HANAMANT DEV OF KALLOLI, R/O. NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE, KALLOLI-591224, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BELAGAVI DISTRICT, BELAGAVI-590001, 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI SUB-DIVISION, DIST:BELAGAVI. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION, & DEPARTMENT OF CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS, BELAGAVI-590001, TQ/DIST: BELAGAVI. 4. THE TAHASILDAR, MUDALAGI TALUKA, MUDALAGI-591224, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI 5. THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR, NADAKACHERI ARABHAVI, ARABHAVI-591306, TQ: GOKAK, DIST:BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAMESH CHIAGARI, AGA FOR R1 TO R5; SRI. SANTOSH B. RAWOOT, ADVOCATE PROPOSED R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO.KRA.SAM.DHADAVI/ADALITA/VIVA-05/2024-25 DATED - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14469 WP No. 100309 of 2025 09.01.2025 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT THEREBY APPOINTING THE 5TH RESPONDENT AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE SRI. HANAMANT DEV OF KALLOLI, KALLOLI, TQ.GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI AS PER ANNEXURE-A JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs: A. Issue a Writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or order to quash the impugned order bearing no.KRA.SAM.DHADAVI/ADALITA/VIVA-05/2024-25 dated 09.01.2025 passed by the 1st respondent thereby appointing the 5th respondent as administrator of the sri. Hanamant Dev of Kalloli, Kalloli, Tq.Gokak, Dist. Belagavi as per Annexure-A justice and equity. B. Grant such other and further reliefs as are just and necessary in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Heard learned counsel Sri.Shriharsha A. Neelopant, appearing for petitioners, learned AGA-Sri.Ramesh Chigari, appearing for respondents Nos.1 to 5 and learned counsel Sri.Santosh B. Rawoot, appearing for proposed respondent No.6. 3. The petitioners claim to be the hereditary trustees of Hanumant Dev Temple, Kalloli village, and are - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14469 WP No. 100309 of 2025 said to have been performing pooja and all other rituals since 1988. In the petition, the petitioners have also appended documentary evidence of the petitioners performing the pooja and other incidental activities in the temple. 4. When things stood thus, it transpires that an order is passed on 09.01.2025 appointing respondent No.5 as an Administrator, invoking Section 29 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioners are knocking at the doors of this court in the subject petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that, admittedly, in the case at hand, the impugned order passed under Section 29 of the Act, appointing an Administrator is in violation of principles of natural justice as no notice or opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioners seeking a reply prior passing the order. It is his - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14469 WP No. 100309 of 2025 further submission that the impugned order is also violative of Section 25A of the Act. 6. Learned AGA submits that a notice was, in fact, issued which brings from the hand of the proposed respondent, which is dated 28.02.2024. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners would now join issue to contend that the said notice does not bear any reference to the impugned order. If the notice had been properly issued, the petitioners would have submitted their reply. Therefore, it is a case where there is no notice issued at all to the petitioners. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the material on record. 9. The afore narrated facts are a matter of record. The issue lies in a narrow compass. The issue does not relate to the performance of the pooja at the temple. The petition is preferred on the score that the impugned order - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14469 WP No. 100309 of 2025 runs counter to Sections 25A and 29 of the Act and is passed complete violation of principles of natural justice. 10. Sections 25A, 28 and 29 of the Act read as follows: “25-A. Provision relating to institution managed by Hereditary Trustee.—(1) No committee of management shall be constituted in respect of the notified institutions managed exclusively by hereditary trustees. The power of management shall vest in such hereditary trustee. (2) If there is no legal heir to succeed the office of the hereditary trustee, the Rajya Dharmika Parishat or the Zilla Dharmika Parishat, as the case may be, shall constitute the committee of management as provided under Section 25. (3) When a temporary vacancy occurs in the office of a hereditary trustee and if there is a dispute with regard to right of succession to such office and such vacancy cannot be filled up immediately or when a successor is a minor and has no guardian fit and willing to act or there is a dispute regard to as to who is entitled to succeed such office, the Rajya Dharmika Parishat may appoint a fit person to discharge functions of the office of hereditary trustee until the disability ceases or another successor succeeds to such office: Provided that in making any appointment, the Rajya Dharmika Parishat shall have due regard to the claims of members of the said family, if any entitled to the succession. ……… ……..... ……… 28. ……… ……..... ……… 28. Power to dissolve the Committee of Management.—(1) The Rajya Dharmika Parishat or Zilla Dharmika Parishat as the case may be shall have power to dissolve a Committee of Management including a member or hereditary - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14469 WP No. 100309 of 2025 trustee 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 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 Rajya Dharmika Parishat or the Zilla Dharmika Parishat as the case may be 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 including a member or hereditary trustee; and the order of dissolution shall state every charge framed against the Committee including a member or hereditary trustee, explanation offered by the committee including a member or hereditary trustee and the finding on such charge together with the reasons therefore. (3) Pending enquiry under sub-section (2) the Rajya Dharmika Parishat or Zilla Dharmika Parishat as the case may be may suspend the Committee including a member or hereditary trustee and appoint an administrator in accordance with Section 29. (4) * * * (5) * * * - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14469 WP No. 100309 of 2025 29. Appointment of Administrator.- The the Rajya Dharmika Parishat or the Zilla Dharmika Parishat 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 or for any other reasons and till a new Committee of Management is constituted or for a period of six months whichever is earlier. Provided that for the reasons to be recorded in writing the Rajya Dharmika Parishat or Zilla Dharmika Parishat, by order extend the said period by any further period, not exceeding six months at a time. So however, the said period shall not exceed one year in total.” (Emphasis supplied) Section 25A of the Act states that no committee of management can be constituted in respect of the notified institutions which are exclusively managed by hereditary trustees and the power of management shall vest in such hereditary trustee. Section 28 of the Act states that, an opportunity of being heard must be provided to the chairman of the committee of the management, including the hereditary trustee before the dissolution of the committee. Under Section 29 of the Act an Administrator can only be appointed under three circumstances, i.e., - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14469 WP No. 100309 of 2025 when there is no if the committee or it’s management is dissolved or suspended under Section 28 of the Act or after the expiry of the term of office of the committee under Section 26 of the Act or for any other reasons. 11. It is an admitted fact that the notice does not bear any reference to the impugned order and does not consist of cogent reasons for appointment of the Administrator. The petitioners claim to be hereditary trustees and they are running the temple. Being hereditary trustees the petitioners ought to have been given an opportunity of being heard before appointment of an Administrator. When the notice does not communicate the exact reasons for such appointment, it cannot be said that the petitioners were given sufficient opportunity of being heard and placing evidence in their support. Therefore, the non-issuance of a proper notice prior to the appointment of Administrator, cuts at the root of the matter. 12. In similar circumstances a Co-ordinate Bench of this court while quashing an order of appointment of an - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14469 WP No. 100309 of 2025 Administrator passed under Section 29 of the Act, on the grounds of non-issuance of a notice, in WP No. 101182 of 2024 disposed on 18-03-2024, held as follows: “6. Perusal of Section 29 of Act would reveal that power to appoint administrator would be under two contingencies: that committee of management was dissolved or suspended under sub-Section (1) or (3) of Section 28 of Act or after expiry of term of office of Committee under Section 26 of Act. To said provision, an amendment was inserted by Act no.12 of 2012 with effect from 05.03.2012, providing for appointment of administrator “for any other reason”. Primary contention urged was that none of first two conditions were complied, as order does not indicate that it was passed on ground that an order of suspension or dissolution was passed under Section 28(1)(3) of Act or that term of committee has expired. Thus, it would appear to be under clause ‘for any other reason’. If it is so, said reason being in nature of an original order, respondents would be obliged to issue notice to petitioners informing of impending action and provide opportunity. In case of earlier clauses, finding would already be there in other proceedings. Thus, when appointment of Administrator is for any other reason, issuance of notice and providing opportunity would have to be read into it. For failure to comply with said requirement, impugned order at Annexure-F would be unsustainable. Hence, following:-” (Emphasis supplied) 13. In light of the aforesaid reasons and the findings of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the afore-quoted case, the impugned order of appointment of the Administrator deserves to be quashed. The petition thus - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14469 WP No. 100309 of 2025 deserves to succeed, albeit in part, by reserving liberty to the respondents to act in accordance with law, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of this order. 14. For the aforesaid reasons the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 09.01.2025 passed by the respondent No.1 vide Annexure-A is hereby quashed. (iii) The respondent-State is at liberty to take action strictly in consonance with law, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of this order. In light of the aforesaid order, the application seeking impleadment becomes unnecessary. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE RHR/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27