- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35646 WP No. 25313 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 25313 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: 1. SRI HONNESHWARASWAMY DEVASTHANA JEERNODHARA SEVA SAMITHI TRUST (R) SHIVANAGERE VILLAGE DODDERI HOBLI, MADUGIRI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT PIN 572 112, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT MANJUNATH J. 2. SRI.GURU.G.S.RAMACHANDRASWAMY, S/O LATE.GURU SHIVARAMANNA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/AT GULUGENAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT PIN 572137. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. R.S. RAVI., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. AKARSH M GOWDA.,ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35646 WP No. 25313 of 2025 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, TUMAKURU 572 101. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, MADUGIRI TALUK, MADUGIRI, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, PIN 572 112. 4. 5. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, BADAVANAHALLI POLICE STATION, BADAVANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, TUMAKURU DISTRICT PIN 572 112. …RESPONDENTS SRI HONNESH GOWDA B R S/O LATE B J RAJAGOPAL AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS SHIVANAGERE, JAKKENAHALLI POST DODDERI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMAKURU DIST. - 572 112 …PROPOSED RESPONDENT - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35646 WP No. 25313 of 2025 (BY SRI.V.G. BHANU PRAKASH., AAG A/W SMT. K.P. YASHODHA. AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. KESHAV R AGNIHOTRI, ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANT) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 13.07.2024 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT INSOFAR AS NOT TO CONSUME NON-VEGETARIAN FOOD IN THE PRECINCTS OF SRI HONNESHWARA DEITY VIDE ANNEXURE-A; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO INTERFERE WITH THE AGE OLD CUSTOM OF THE DEVOTEES TO PREPARE AND CONSUME NON- VEGETARIAN FOOD AWAY FROM THE TEMPLE BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION VIDE ANNEXURE-C, ANNEXURE-C1, ANNEXURE-C2 AND ANNEXURE-C3 DATED 18.09.2024. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35646 WP No. 25313 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioners are a Trust and another. The Trust, as asserted in the memorandum of petition, attends to the affairs of Sri Honneshwaraswamy Diety in Shivanagere Village, Dodderi Hobli, Madugiri Taluk, Tumakuru District. The petitioners are aggrieved by the fourth respondent's Notice dated 13.07.2024. The fourth respondent, in issuing this impugned notice, while referring to the directions issued by this Court in the writ petition in W.P. No.18124/2023 [which is decided on 27.06.2023], has stipulated thus: "ೕ ೊೆ ೕಶರ ಾ ೇವ ಾನದ ಸುಾ ಮುಾ 200 ೕಟ ಅಂತರದ !ಾವ"ೇ #ೕ$ಯ &ಾ' ಬ ಾಗೂ *ಾಂಸಾರ ೇವೆ ನ+ೆಯದಂೆ ಅಗತ, ಕಮಗಳನು /ೈ1ೊಳ23ವಂೆ *ಾನ, ಾ,!ಾಲಯವ" ಆೇ6ರುತೆ, ಆದ7#ಂದ *ಾನ, ಉಚ: ಾ,!ಾಲಯವ" *ಾ;ರುವ ಆೇಶವನು ಕ+ಾ<ಯ=ಾ> &ಾಸ?ೇಕು ಒಂದು =ೇAೆ ಾ,!ಾಲಯದ ಆೇಶವನು ಉಲ ಂಘೆ *ಾ;ದ CಮD EರುದF /ಾನೂನು ಪ/ಾರ ಕಮ ಜರು>ಸIಾಗುವ"ದು. ಇದKೊಂL1ೆ *ಾನ, ಉಚ: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35646 WP No. 25313 of 2025 ಾ,!ಾಲಯದ ಆೇಶದ ಪ$ಗಳನು ಲಗ$6/ೊಂಡು ತಮD ಸ 6/ೊಂ;ರುೆ." 2. The essential translation of the above is that this Court has directed that there should be no animal sacrifice or consumption of meat within 200 metres of the Temple. This Court, on 04.09.2025, has called upon the learned Additional Government Advocate to secure instructions on the circumstances in which the decision is taken and whether the jurisdictional police has verified the customs that are prevalent insofar as the offerings by the devotees within the Temple precincts. 3. Sri Bhanu Prakash, the learned Additional Advocate General who is assisted by Smt K P Yashodha, a learned Additional Government Advocate, submits that all sacrifices are prohibited under the Karnataka Prevention of Animal Sacrifices Act, 1959, and therefore, no exception can be taken with Annexure-A insofar as such stipulation, but the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35646 WP No. 25313 of 2025 stipulation as regards consumption of meat within the aforesaid distance of the Temple will not be justified by any statutory provision. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that his instructions are that Annexure-A will be withdrawn because of this error and a fresh order issued prohibiting sacrificing of animals, and specifically within the radius of 200 metres from the Temple. 4. Sri R S Ravi, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners' grievance is not with the prohibition of sacrifice but it is only with the restriction on consumption of meat within the Temple's precincts as it would be contrary to the local customs and practices. Sri Keshav R Agnihotri, the learned counsel who has applied for impleadment on behalf of the petitioners in the writ petition in W.P. No.18124/2023, submits that not only should the applicant be permitted to come on record as an additional respondent but also be - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35646 WP No. 25313 of 2025 permitted to argue in support of the stipulation that there should be no consumption of meat within 200 metres of the Temple. 5. When queried, the learned counsel can only rely upon to the provisions of the Karnataka Prevention of Animal Sacrifices Act, 1959 and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 to contend that there must be prohibition as stipulated in Annexure-A, and the learned counsel emphasizes that the stipulation as against consumption of meat would be justified in the light of this Court's direction in the writ petition in W.P. No.18124/2023. 6. The question whether the petition must be disposed of in the light of the State Government's stand that the impugned order will be withdrawn and a fresh order issued restricting animal sacrifice is examined in the light of the two grounds urged. The first ground is that this Court's order in the writ petition in W.P. No.18124/2023 affords justification, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35646 WP No. 25313 of 2025 and this must only be mentioned to be rejected because this Court's order is not an adjudication on any issue in dispute but a direction to consider the applicant's representation in the light of the stand on behalf of the State that the representation will be considered in accordance with law. The operative portion of this Court's order reads as under: "In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present petition stands disposed of, directing respondent Nos.1 to 6 to take necessary steps/actions pursuant to the representation at Annexures-H and J both dated 27.06.2023 in accordance with law, if not already taken as on today, within a period of six weeks from today." 7. This Court is also not persuaded by the second contention because it is indisputable that neither the Karnataka Prevention of Animal Sacrifices Act nor the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act prohibit consumption of meat. Even if there is to be any restriction, it has to be based only on the local practices that have been. In the light of the afore, this - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35646 WP No. 25313 of 2025 Court is inclined to dispose of the petition taking on record the submission that the impugned order will be withdrawn and a fresh order issued stipulating that the needful shall be done within a week from today. The petition stands disposed of, and consequently, the application for impleadment also stands rejected. SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/-