- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20648 WP No. 9310 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 9310 OF 2026 (GM-R/C) BETWEEN: 1. K.S. SAMPATH KUMAR S/O. LATE KT SUDARSHANA NARASIMHACHAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS STANIKA, SRI CHELUVANARAYANA SWAMY TEMPLE R/AT NO.24, CAR STREET MELKOTE, PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 431. 2. S. PRASANNA KUMAR S/O. LATE R. SRINIVASAN AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS STANIKA, SRI CHELUVANARAYANA SWAMY TEMPLE R/AT NO.36, CAR STREET MELKOTE, PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 431. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. AJAY J. NANDALIKE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION & CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE ENDOWMENT COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION & CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001. Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20648 WP No. 9310 of 2026 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA - 571401. 4. THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA-571401. 5. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER MELUKOTE SRI CHELUVANARAYANASWAMY TEMPLE PANDAVAPURA-571 434. 6. SRI. S.N. SRI RAMAN AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS OLD S/O LATE NARASIMHACHAR RESIDING AT RAYAGOPURA STREET MELUKOTE, PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 431. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.P. YOGANNA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. HARISCHANDRA MOVVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5; SMT. PRATISHTA .C.B, ADVOCATE FOR R6 (VK NOT FILED)) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED DIRECTION DATED 19/12/2025 BEARING NO. MDC- MUZAODVS1/299/2023(E-247560) ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 (VIDE ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The petitioners in the captioned writ petition, who claim to be devotees as well as hereditary Sthanikas - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20648 WP No. 9310 of 2026 attached to Sri Cheluva Narayana Swamy Temple, Melukot, a notified temple under the provisions of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 (for short "Act, 1997") are calling in question the legality and validity of (i) the impugned communication dated 19.12.2025 issued by the fourth respondent–Additional Deputy Commissioner, and (ii) the consequential order dated 21.03.2026 passed by the fifth respondent–Executive Officer, whereby the sixth respondent has been directed to discharge the duties of the third Sthanika without interruption. 2. The petitioners assert that the temple in question has a long-standing and well-recognized tradition governing the appointment and functioning of Sthanikas, who are entrusted with specific religious and customary duties in relation to the deity, as prescribed under the temple manual and established usage. It is the specific case of the petitioners that such appointments are not secular or contractual in nature, but are hereditary offices, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20648 WP No. 9310 of 2026 devolving in accordance with lineage and custom. The petitioners contend that they are the direct lineal descendants of the original holder of the office of third Sthanika, and as such, claim an exclusive hereditary right to perform the said duties. 3. The gist of the petitioners’ grievance is that the sixth respondent, who has been permitted to discharge the functions of the third Sthanika, does not belong to the hereditary line and is wholly ineligible to be appointed or entrusted with such duties. The petitioners therefore contend, that the entrustment of duties in favour of the sixth respondent is in blatant disregard of the established customs, temple traditions, and the hereditary scheme governing such offices. 4. The petitioners further contend that the fourth respondent–Additional Deputy Commissioner has acted wholly without jurisdiction in issuing the impugned communication dated 19.12.2025 directing the fifth - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20648 WP No. 9310 of 2026 respondent–Executive Officer to make arrangements for discharge of duties of the third Sthanika. It is contended that under the scheme of the Act, only the authorities specifically recognized under Sections 3 and 4, namely the Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, and Assistant Commissioner, are vested with powers of superintendence, control, and adjudication, including determination of disputes relating to hereditary offices under Section 25-B of the Act, 1997. The Additional Deputy Commissioner, not being a statutory authority recognized under the Act for such purposes, could not have issued any direction touching upon hereditary rights or temple offices. 5. The petitioners further contend that the fifth respondent–Executive Officer, whose role is confined to the administration and management of the temple and its properties, has mechanically acted upon the directions of the fourth respondent without independently examining the legality or competence of such directions. It is contended that the Executive Officer has no authority to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20648 WP No. 9310 of 2026 adjudicate upon or alter hereditary rights or to appoint or recognize any person to a hereditary office in derogation of established customs and statutory provisions. 6. In this background, the petitioners contend that both the impugned communication issued by the fourth respondent and the consequential order passed by the fifth respondent are ex facie without jurisdiction, contrary to the statutory scheme, and violative of the petitioners’ hereditary rights. The impugned actions are therefore liable to be declared as illegal and void, and consequently, are liable to be quashed by issuance of an appropriate writ. 7. The sixth respondent, having entered caveat, has appeared through counsel and filed a detailed statement of objections along with an application seeking vacating of the interim order. Along with the statement of objections and the vacating application, the sixth respondent has produced several documents, which - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20648 WP No. 9310 of 2026 according to him are germane and crucial for adjudication of the present controversy. At the outset, the sixth respondent has seriously questioned the very maintainability of the writ petition both on facts and in law, contending that the petitioners have approached this Court suppressing material and relevant facts, and on that ground alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine. 8. In elaboration of his defence, the sixth respondent contends that as per the Temple Manual governing Sri Cheluva Narayana Swamy Temple, Melukote, there exist four principal Sthanikas, each of whom is assigned distinct duties and responsibilities, which are codified in the manual itself. It is specifically asserted that the sixth respondent is the third “Swamaya” hereditary Sthanika of the said temple, and that his position and status emanate from recognized custom and sanctioned appointment. The sixth respondent further disputes the petitioners’ version that he has been assigned - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20648 WP No. 9310 of 2026 duties pursuant to the impugned communication issued by the fourth respondent. On the contrary, it is contended that his appointment is independent of the said communication. 9. The sixth respondent has specifically alleged that the petitioners have deliberately suppressed the material fact relating to the appointment order dated 19.08.2021 passed by the third respondent–Deputy Commissioner, whereby the sixth respondent was appointed as the third “Swamaya” Sthanika strictly in accordance with the Temple Manual. It is contended that the said appointment order, which forms the very foundation of the sixth respondent’s claim, has not been challenged by the petitioners till date, and therefore, the petitioners are estopped from questioning the status or functioning of the sixth respondent in the present proceedings. On this ground, it is contended that the petitioners lack locus standi to maintain the writ petition. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20648 WP No. 9310 of 2026 10. The sixth respondent has further asserted his independent hereditary right to the office of third Sthanika, contending that prior to his appointment, his father, late Sthanikam Narsimhachar, was discharging the duties of the third Sthanika, and such discharge of duties was recognized as part of a hereditary office. It is stated that upon the demise of his father in the year 2021, the sixth respondent has succeeded to the said position and has been continuously performing the duties attached to the office. 11. In support of his claim of hereditary right, the sixth respondent has placed reliance on proceedings conducted by the Sub-Divisional Officer as far back as in the year 1955. Placing reliance on the said proceedings, it is contended that the hereditary rights of his father were duly adjudicated and recognized, and that the office of third Sthanika held by his father was treated on par with other hereditary Sthanikas, including those claimed by the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20648 WP No. 9310 of 2026 petitioners. On the strength of these materials, the sixth respondent seeks dismissal of the writ petition. 12. The fifth respondent–Executive Officer has also filed statement of objections, opposing the writ petition and justifying the issuance of the impugned order dated 21.03.2026 (Annexure-B). It is contended that the said order has been issued in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 33B of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Rules, 2002(for short "Rules"). It is further contended that the Temple Manual also vests authority in the Executive Officer to ensure that temple servants, including Sthanikas, discharge their respective duties properly and without interruption. 13. The fifth respondent therefore contends, that the impugned communication has been issued strictly in accordance with the powers conferred under the statutory Rules as well as the Temple Manual, and is intended only - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20648 WP No. 9310 of 2026 to ensure smooth performance of temple rituals and administration. It is thus contended that there is no illegality or lack of jurisdiction in issuing the impugned order, and on these grounds, the fifth respondent seeks dismissal of the writ petition. 14. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 6, and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents. This Court has carefully examined the pleadings, documents placed on record, and the rival contentions urged by the parties. 15. The principal foundation of the petitioners’ case rests on the assertion that the sixth respondent has been permitted to discharge the duties of the third Sthanika without there being a valid and subsisting appointment order, and that the fifth respondent–Executive Officer lacks the authority in law to assign or recognize the sixth respondent to perform such duties. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20648 WP No. 9310 of 2026 16. Per contra, the sixth respondent has produced along with his statement of objections, the appointment order dated 19.08.2021 issued by the third respondent– Deputy Commissioner, who is the competent authority under the provisions of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 2002. The said document, prima facie, evidences the appointment of the sixth respondent as the third “Swamaya” Sthanika in accordance with the Temple Manual. 17. In that view of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to extract the contents of the said appointment order, which is produced as Document No.2 along with the application for vacating stay and the same reads as under: "
ಷಯ: ಮಂಡ  ೆ ¥ÁAಡವಪರ ಾಲೂಕು ೕಲುೋೆ ೕ ೆಲುವ ಾಾಯಣ ಾ!" #ೇ$ಾಲಯದ& ಕತ(ವ )ವ(*ಸು,-ರುವ ಾ.)ಕಂ ನರ0ಂಹಾ2 ೇ3 ಾ.)ಕಂ - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20648 WP No. 9310 of 2026 ,ರುಾಾಯಣಯಂ4ಾ2 ರವರ ವಂಶ6ಾರಂಪಯ( ಹು#ೆ7ಗಳ ಬಾಬದ(ನು; ವ4ಾ(=0ೊಡಲು ೋ>ರುವ ಬ4ೆ?. ಉ ೇಖ:  ಾCಾ>ಗಳD, ಮಂqÀå  ೆ ರವರ ಪತ ಸಂ:E
ಎG (1)/21/20-21 ¢£ÁAPÀ:22.06.2021. ಮಂಡ  ೆ, 6ಾಂಡವಪರ ಾಲೂಕು, ೕಲುೋೆ ೕ ೆಲುವಾಾಯಣ ಾ!" #ೇ$ಾಲಯದ& ¸ÁÜ)ಕಂ ೕ ನರ0ಂಹಾ2 ರವರು ವಂಶ6ಾರಂಪಯ($ಾH ಮೂರೇ ಾ!ಮದ ಾ.)ಕಂ ಹು#ೆ7ಯ& ಕತ(ವ )ವ(*ಸು,-ದು7 ಸದ> ಹು#ೆ7ಯನು; ಇವರ ಮಗಾದ ೕ ಎG.ಎJ ೕಾಮJ ರವರ Kೆಸ>4ೆ ಬಾಬದು( ಬದ ಾವLೆ Mಾಡಲು ಒOP Qಾವ#ೇ ತರಾರುಗಳD ಇರುವRಲ$ೆಂದು &Sತ$ಾH ಪತ )ೕEರುವದ>ಂದ ಇವರ Kೆಸ>4ೆ ಬಾಬT( ವ4ಾ(ವLೆ MಾEೊಡಲು ಮತು- ಇತೆ ಹು#ೆ7ಗಳನು; )ವ(*ಸಲು ಆ#ೇಸುವಂೆ  ಾCಾ>ಗಳD ಉ ೇSತ ಪತದ& ಪ ಾ-ವೆ ಸ&0ರುಾ-ೆ.  ಾCಾ>ಗಳ ಪ ಾ-ವೆಯಂೆ Kಾಗೂ ಈ ಕWೇ>ಯ ಆಗಮ ಪಂEತರ ಅY6ಾಯದಂೆ ಮಂಡ  ೆ, 6ಾಂಡವಪರ ಾಲೂಕು ೕಲುೋೆ ೕ ೆಲುವಾಾಯಣ ಾ!" #ೇ$ಾಲಯದ& ವಂಶ6ಾರಂಪಯ($ಾH ಮೂರೇ ಾ!ಮದ ¸ÁÜ )ಕಂ ಹು#ೆ7ಯ& ಕತ(ವ )ವ(*ಸು,-ದ7 ಾ.)ಕಂ ೕ ನರ0ಂಹಾರವರ ಹು#ೆ7ಯನು; ಇವರ ಮಗಾದ ೕ ಎG.ಎJ ೕಾಮJ ರವ>4ೆ ವ4ಾ(=ಸಲು ಕಾ(ಟಕ *ಂದೂ [ಾ"(ಕ ಸಂ ೆ.ಗಳD ಮತು- ಧMಾ(#ಾಯ ದ,-ಗಳ - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20648 WP No. 9310 of 2026 ಅC)ಯಮ-1997 ಕಲಂ 9 (1) ರನ!ಯ ಪ]$ಾ(ನು^ೕದೆ )ೕE#ೆ Kಾಗೂ ಇವರ ಕುಟುಂಬೆ_ 6ಾಪ-$ಾಗುವ ಹ`_ನ ಇತೆ ಹು#ೆ7ಗಳ ಕತ(ವಗಳನು; ಸಹ )ವ(*ಸಲು ಆ#ೇ0#ೆ." 18. It would be apposite for this Court to advert to the proceedings held by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pandavapura, which are dated 30.06.1955, and which have been relied upon by the sixth respondent in support of his claim of hereditary right. The said proceedings assume significance in examining the rival claims pertaining to the office of Sthanika. The relevant portion of the said proceedings is extracted hereunder: "Seen and returned. From a perusal of the records, it is seen that the applicant stanik Narasimhachar is put in charge of No.27 of Stanika and Suthalagudi Ho.11 on 16.12.1950 as per orders of the S.D.O.P. Pura dated the Muz 258/4950-25.11.50 (vide perhkar's report No.65/51- 52 dated: 24.5.51) The Perhkars has further stated in his report dated: 15.7.51 that the petitioner has not bean given full right to work in the temple as other 8 staniks from the several petitions given by the petitioner, it is stated that he has urged for the charge of several works to be done by the stanik, which have not been entrusted to - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20648 WP No. 9310 of 2026 him so far though the same have been attached to Stanik No.27. As the said sardi of the petitioner begins from 1st July of every years, the Amildar is requested to see that the marginally noted works attached to Stanik No.27 as the Temple Mamar which has not given been given charge TO THE PETITIONER far from the past 5 years are given to the petitioner at once from 1.7.55 submit a report early. The enclosed cases result be returned within a week for further needful action in this office as per orders of the Dep. Commrs. dated: 24.12.51 re: registry of barawars (sic.) in respect of Stanik post No.27. Sd/- T. Siddalinga Devaru., Sub-Division Officer Pandavapura. 30.6.55." 19. The principal contention urged by the petitioners in assailing the impugned action of the fifth respondent pertains to the alleged lack of authority on the part of the fifth respondent–Executive Officer to assign or permit the sixth respondent to discharge the duties of the 1. Chamara hidiyuvudu. (To hold chamara) 2. Antharangadalli Madatakka Kelsagalu 3. Lakshmi Amsha. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20648 WP No. 9310 of 2026 third Sthanika. The petitioners have specifically questioned the locus and competence of the Executive Officer in this regard. 20. In order to examine the said contention, this Court deems it necessary to advert to Rule 33B(6) of the Rules, which has been produced as Document No.14 along with the application for vacating stay. The said provision is relevant for determining the scope of powers vested in the Executive Officer. Accordingly, the relevant portion of Rule 33B(6) of the aforesaid Rules is extracted hereunder: "(6) The Archaks and temple servants shall work under the immediate control of the Executive Officer of the temple and any dereliction of duties, misconduct, lapses if any, unauthorised absence, complaints shall be placed before the Committee of Management for taking action against such Archaks/temple servants under section 16 of the Act." 21. This Court, on a meticulous examination of the appointment order dated 19.08.2021 issued in favour of the sixth respondent by the third respondent–Deputy - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20648 WP No. 9310 of 2026 Commissioner, who is the competent authority under the Act, read in conjunction with the proceedings of the Sub- Divisional Officer, Pandavapura, dated 30.06.1955, as well as the tenor and purport of the communication issued by the fifth respondent–Executive Officer, is of the considered view that the sixth respondent has prima facie established his entitlement to discharge the duties attached to the office of the third Sthanika. 22. The material placed on record by the sixth respondent clearly indicates that he traces his claim not merely to the appointment order issued by the competent authority, but also to a recognized line of hereditary succession. The proceedings of the year 1955, relied upon by the sixth respondent, lend prima facie support to his contention that his predecessor, namely his father, was recognized as having hereditary rights in respect of the office of third Sthanika. The said proceedings further indicate that such rights were acknowledged and stood on - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20648 WP No. 9310 of 2026 par with similar hereditary claims, including those asserted by the petitioners’ lineage. 23. It is also evident from the records that upon the demise of his father, the sixth respondent has succeeded to the said position and has been discharging the duties attached to the office. The appointment order dated 19.08.2021 issued by the third respondent–Deputy Commissioner, therefore, cannot be viewed in isolation, but is reflective of the recognition of such hereditary entitlement in accordance with the governing framework. 24. Insofar as the impugned communication issued by the fifth respondent–Executive Officer is concerned, a careful reading of the same would indicate that it is not in the nature of an appointment order, as sought to be projected by the petitioners. On the contrary, the said communication appears to have been issued only to ensure that the duties attached to the office of the third Sthanika are carried out without interruption and to - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20648 WP No. 9310 of 2026 obviate any administrative or functional vacuum in the temple affairs. 25. The said action of the fifth respondent is traceable to the limited powers vested in him under Rule 33B(6) of the Rules, as well as the provisions of the Temple Manual, which require the Executive Officer to ensure due and proper performance of duties by temple servants. The communication, therefore, is merely facilitative in nature and operates in furtherance of the appointment already made by the competent authority, namely the third respondent–Deputy Commissioner. 26. This Court also finds considerable force in the contention urged by the sixth respondent that the petitioners have not chosen to challenge the appointment order dated 19.08.2021 issued by the competent authority. The entire challenge in the present writ petition is confined only to the communication issued by the fourth respondent–Additional Deputy Commissioner and the - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20648 WP No. 9310 of 2026 consequential order issued by the fifth respondent– Executive Officer. In the absence of any challenge to the foundational appointment order, the collateral challenge to consequential communications cannot be sustained. 27. The material on record, particularly Document No.2 produced by the sixth respondent, clearly establishes that the sixth respondent has been appointed by the third respondent–Deputy Commissioner and not by the fourth respondent–Additional Deputy Commissioner. The role of the fifth respondent is limited to assigning and regulating the discharge of duties in terms of the said appointment and cannot be construed as conferring any independent appointment. 28. Further, the records prima facie disclose that the sixth respondent also possesses hereditary rights to perform certain duties attached to the office of the third Sthanika. In that view of the matter, the petitioners, who themselves claim rights flowing from a similar source, - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20648 WP No. 9310 of 2026 cannot selectively question the appointment of the sixth respondent made by the very same competent authority. 29. In the light of the foregoing discussion and on an overall appreciation of the material placed on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the contentions urged by the petitioners are wholly misconceived and untenable. The petitioners have failed to establish any lack of jurisdiction or illegality in the impugned communications. 30. Accordingly, this Court holds that the petitioners lack locus to maintain the present writ petition, and the writ petition being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed. 31. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, rendered by a Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court, does not lend any assistance to the case of the petitioners. On a careful examination, this Court finds that the facts and circumstances involved in - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20648 WP No. 9310 of 2026 the said decision are clearly distinguishable from those obtaining in the present case. Consequently, the reliance placed on the said judgment is misplaced and the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 32. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER The writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 94