- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8352 WP No. 5387 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 5387 OF 2025 (GM-R/C) BETWEEN: SMT. K. R. ANURADHA W/O LATE S SHRINIVAS NO.998, HOUSE NO.3, ADHYA 6TH ROAD, 3RD MAIN ROAD BEHIND MAHALXMI STREET VIDYARANAYPURA, MYSORE -570008 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H L PRADEEP KUMAR., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. S. ANIL KUMAR BIN LATE K NAGARAJ ABOUT 49 YEARS DEVIKERE ROAD, CHAMUNDIBETTA MYSURU -570004 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA (PROFORMA PARTY) REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHIARITABLE ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE- 560001 Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8352 WP No. 5387 of 2025 3. THE COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT, CHAMARAJPET BENGALURU 560018. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KRISHNARAJA BLVD RD, K G KOPPAL KAJJIHUNDI, MYSURU 570001 5. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER/SECRETARY SRI CHAMUNDESHWARI TEMPLE COMMITTEE CHAMUNDI BETTA, MYSURU 570001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.P.P.HEGDE., SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. ASHWIN B.G., ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. H.K. KENCHE GOWDA., AGA FOR R2 TO R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN APPEAL BEARING NO. ADM 7/AP 15/2023-24 BETWEEN SRI.N.ANIL KUMAR AGAINST THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ON THE FILE OF R-3 (ANNX-J) AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD. 06.02.2025 PASSED BY THE R-3 IN APPEAL BEARING NO. ADM 7/AP15/2023-24 BETWEEN SRI.N.ANIL KUMAR AGAINST THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ON THE FILE OF R-3 WHICH ARE PRODUCED AS ANNX-S AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8352 WP No. 5387 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER On the previous date of hearing, the following order was passed: “Sri Ashvin B.G., learned counsel, has entered appearance for respondent No.1. Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to take notice for respondent Nos.2 to 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to serve copies of the writ petition along with annexures on the learned Additional Government Advocate. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. P.P. Hegde, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 and on going to the petition papers, this Court finds that the relevant issue as to whether the petitioner, being a lady, can claim the rights of Archakship of the temple has not been gone into either in the impugned order or in the earlier orders. The next question is whether the petitioner has the necessary qualification. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8352 WP No. 5387 of 2025 Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to contend that the petitioner's two sons have also attained majority, and they are eligible to perform the Archakship in the temple. It is also contended that there is no bar under the provisions of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997. The definition of the word 'Archaka' as found in Sub-Section 2 of Section 2 of the said Act, employ the word "any person” and it is gender-neutral. On the other hand, the interim order only makes temporary arrangements permitting the petitioner and the first respondent to do the Archakship one month each till the issue is decided by the Deputy Commissioner. The parties and the learned Additional Government Advocate are directed to apprise the Deputy Commissioner, who is considering the matter regarding the issue that is required to be considered. Two weeks time is granted to the respondents-State and the first respondent to file statement of objections. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the matter may be taken - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8352 WP No. 5387 of 2025 up tomorrow i.e., on 25.02.2025 in order to enable the learned counsel to secure instructions and make submissions. Re-list this matter on 25.02.2025 for preliminary hearing. “ 2. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.D.R.Ravishankar, appearing for the petitioner submits that the only ground on which the impugned order has been passed by the Commissioner is that the contesting first respondent has taken up a stand that when he gave a ‘No Objection Certificate’ to his brother-Srinivas, the first respondent was a minor and no document signed by a minor could be considered as legally valid. Learned Senior Counsel would therefore submit that at this juncture when the first respondent never performed the function as Archak of the Temple for the last 22 years, whether it would be appropriate to make the kind of arrangement that has been made by the Commissioner in the impugned order. Learned Senior Counsel would therefore submit that the said arrangement made in the impugned order directing - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8352 WP No. 5387 of 2025 the performance of the Archakship between the petitioner’s son and the first respondent for a month alternatively, should be stayed and the petitioner’s son should be permitted to continue till the issue is decided by the Commissioner. 3. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel, learned Counsel for the first respondent and perusing the petition papers, this Court is of the considered opinion that an important aspect of the matter has not been considered by any of the official respondents herein. An important aspect that was required to be considered by the competent authority while granting the rights of Archakship was to find out as to whether the person is qualified to perform the functions of an Archak. It is not sufficient that a person can simply claim to have acquired the hereditary right of performing pooja. The law requires that the right to perform the pooja or archakship can be conferred only if a person has the requisite educational qualification. This aspect of the matter has not been - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8352 WP No. 5387 of 2025 considered by any of the official respondents herein. No information is available on record either in the writ petition or in the impugned orders regarding the requisite educational qualification of the petitioner’s son or the first respondent. 4. In that view of the matter, this Court would accept the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel that for a short period it would not be justifiable to permit the first respondent to now perform the archakship, since the first respondent has never performed the function of an archak till now. 5. Consequently, the writ petition stands dispose of while modifying the impugned order and directing that the petitioner’s son who is performing the pooja or archakship shall continue to perform the function till the issue is decided by the Deputy Commissioner in terms of the impugned order. The matter stands remanded back to the fourth respondent-Deputy Commissioner for consideration of the issue, afresh. Further, the Deputy Commissioner - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8352 WP No. 5387 of 2025 shall also consider the question regarding the requisite educational qualification of the petitioner’s son, who is presently performing the function of archakship and that of the first respondent and decide the matter as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE DL CT: JL