- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44318 WP No. 36372 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 36372 OF 2024 (GM-R/C) BETWEEN: K. SOMANATHA NAIK S/O JAYAVANTHA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT GANESH NIVAS, PERVAJE ROAD, KARKALA, UDUPI DISTRICT-574 104. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DILRAJ JUDE ROHIT SEQUEIRA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUZURAI DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT, MINTO ANJANEYA BHAVANA, ALUR VENKATARAO ROAD, CHAMARAJAPETE, BANGALORE-560 018. Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44318 WP No. 36372 of 2024 3. DISTRICT COMMISSIONER, THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, RAJATADRI, MANIPAL, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-576 104. 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-576 104. 5. TAHSILDAR AND EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE, TALUKU ADALITHA SOUDHA, KARKALA TALUK, KARKALA, UDUPI DISTRICT-574 104. 6. K.B. GOPLAKRISHNA RAO, S/O ANNAPPA SHERIGHAR, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, R/A KASABA GRAMA, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-574 104. 7. BALAKRISHNA RAO, S/O LATE SRINIVAS HAVALDHAR, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, R/AT 1ST MAIN, GOPAPURA, 5TH CROSS, SANTHEKATTE, KALYANAPURA, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-576 105. 8. SURESH HAVALDHAR, S/O LATE HARISHCHANDRA HAVALDHAR, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/A KASABA GRAMA, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-574 104. 9. RAGHAVENDRA, S/O LATE K.J. VENKATAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44318 WP No. 36372 of 2024 R/A KASABA GRAMA, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-574 104. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. RAVINDRANATH AGA FOR R1 TO R5, V/O DATED 04.11.2025 NOTICE TO R6 TO R9 DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. DIRECTION IN SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER REJECTING THE IMPLEADING APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER I RULE 10 OF THE C.P.C. BY THE PETITIONER BY THE HONORABLE NYAYADHIKARANA KARNATAKA RAJYA DHARMIKA PARISHAD, BANGALORE IN RDP TRI NO.08/2023-2024 DATED 22/11/2024 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. Learned AGA accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 to 5. 2. Notice to respondent No.6 to 9 is dispensed with in view of the proposed order to be passed. 3. Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44318 WP No. 36372 of 2024 "A. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other order or direction in setting aside the order rejecting the Impleading application filed under Order I Rule 10 of the C.P.C. by the petitioner by the Honorable Nyayadhikarana Karnataka Rajya Dharmika Parishad, Bangalore in RDP TRI No.08/2023-2024 Dated 22/11/2024 produced at Annexure-A. B. Allow the application filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 of the code of civil procedure to implead himself as one of the parties to assist the Honourable Nyayadhikarana Karnataka Rajya Dharmika Parishad, Bangalore in RDP TRI NO.08/2023-2024 in coming to the just decision of the case produced at Annexure-AH. C. Appoint Administrator to Manage the affairs of the Kote Kille Mariamma Temple at Karkala". 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the impleading application filed by him in the pending proceeding before the Nyayadhikarna Karnataka Rajya Dharmika Parishat, Bengaluru, in I.A.No. in RDP TRI 8/2023-24 came to be dismissed by way of the impugned order dated 22.11.2024. 5. The submission of Sri.Dilraj Jude Rohit Sequeira, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a public-spirited individual and he wishes to bring to notice the history of the temple as - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44318 WP No. 36372 of 2024 well as certain other facts, which would have been required to be considered by the Rajya Dharmika Parishat before orders were passed. 6. On enquiry as to whether the petitioner is a candidate for being appointed as a hereditary Archak or the like, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is not interested in doing so and he has no personal interest in the matter except to bring to the notice of the concerned, certain facts and documents which are of seminal importance for the purpose of consideration of the matter. 7. An application under Rule 10 of Order I of the Code of Civil Procedure can be only considered on the basis of whether the applicant is a proper or necessary party to the proceeding. 8. Insofar as necessary party is concerned, the petitioner having categorically indicated that there is no relief that the petitioner claims, the question of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44318 WP No. 36372 of 2024 the petitioner being necessary would not arise. More so when there is no order which would be passed against the petitioner. 9. Insofar as being a proper party is concerned, even in respect thereof, the petitioner only wanted to bring to the notice of the respondent certain documents and certain historical perspectives. It would always be available for the petitioner to place the same and to communicate the same to respondent No.2, which could be considered if so found necessary on merits. 10. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is also not a proper party to the proceedings, and this aspect has been dealt with by the Rajya Dharmika Parishat in its detailed order dated 22.11.2024. 11. In that view of the matter, writ petition is dismissed. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to furnish such documents as the petitioner deems fit to be of relevance to the respondent No.2, which if - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44318 WP No. 36372 of 2024 found to be relevant, could be considered by the respondents. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29