- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32365-DB WA No. 578 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 578 OF 2026 (GM-R/C) BETWEEN: 1. SRI SUDHAKARA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS S/O. BHOJAGOWDA R/AT. NADU ACTOLI SEETANADI POST HEBRI TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 112 2. SRI VARADARAJA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS S/O. ANNAPPA R/AT. KULAL, MELBANDI MUTT SEETANADI POST HEBRI TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 112 3. SRI. HARISH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS S/0. SUNDARKUMAR R/AT. BELLARE HOUSE SEETANADI POST HEBRI TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 112 4. SRI. SUDARSHAN HEGDE AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O. VITTALA HEGDE Digitally signed by AMBIKA H B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32365-DB WA No. 578 of 2026 R/AT. ACTOLI HOUSE NALU VILLAGE SEETANADI POST HEBRI TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 112 5. SRI. MANJUNATH KULAL AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS S/O. JAYARAM KULAL R/AT. MULLADU BAILUMANE NADALU VILLAGE SEETANADI POST HEBRI TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 112 6. SRI. NAGARAJA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O. RAMA HARIJANA R/AT. BAILUMANE, NANDALU NALU VILLAGE SEETANADI POST HEBRI TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 112 7. SRI. DHEERAJ HEGDE AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS S/O. GANGADHARA HEGDE SEETARIADI POST HEBRI TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 112 8. SRI. VIJAYKUMAR SHETTY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O. BHOJA SHETTY R/AT. VISHWAN KRUPA NADPALU VILLAGE SEETANADI POST HEBRI TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 112 9. SRI. NAGESH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS S/O LINGAPPA NAYAK NADPALU VILLAGE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32365-DB WA No. 578 of 2026 SEETANADI POST HEBRI TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 112 10. SRI. MAHESH NAIK AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS S/O. NAGAPPA NAIK R/AT HURULLI KUMBLI NADPALU VILLAGE SEETANADI POST HEBRI TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 112 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. DILRAJ JUDE ROHIT SEQUEIRA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. MANORAMA S SHETTY AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS W/O B. SHEKARA SHETTY R/O ABHINETRI HOUSE KUNJAL HOUSE, BRAHMAVARA UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 213 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY HRI AND CE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001 3. THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS ALURU VENKATA RAO ROAD CHAMARAJPET BENGALURU - 560 018 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HRI AND CE DEPARTMENT UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 101 5. THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UDUPI UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 101 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32365-DB WA No. 578 of 2026 6. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HRI AND CE DEPARTMENT UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 101 …RESPONDENTS (SRI VIJAY KRISHNA BHAT M, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1 SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B G, AGA FOR R2 TO R6) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05.02.2026 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION No.23117/2025 (GM-R/C) AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 05.02.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.23117/2025 (GM-R/C). The said petition was filed by respondent No.1, inter alia, impugning the Government Order dated 04.06.2025 issued by the Government of Karnataka and the Office Memorandum dated 26.06.2025. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32365-DB WA No. 578 of 2026 2. By virtue of the impugned Government Order, Sitanadi Nandalu Sri Durgaparameshwari Temple, Nadsalu Village, Hebri Taluk, Udupi District [hereafter the temple] was declared as an institution covered under Sections 42 and 43 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 [the said Act] on the grounds that (i) it is managed in chaotic manner; (ii) there is misappropriation of funds; and (iii) lack of transparency of management of the Trust. In terms of the Memorandum dated 26.06.2025, the Executive Officer of Sri Durgaparameshwari Temple was appointed as Executive Officer under Section 45 of the said Act for maintenance of the temple. 3. The learned Single Judge had found that the proceedings had been initiated by a notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner and not the Commissioner and, therefore, the same was not in conformity with Section 43(2) of the said Act. 4. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 43 of the said Act are relevant and the same read as under: "43. Notice to show cause. (1) Where the Commissioner has reason to believe that a Hindu Religious Institution whether or not governed by a settled scheme is being mismanaged - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32365-DB WA No. 578 of 2026 and he is satisfied that in the interest of its administration, it is necessary to take proceedings under this chapter, he may, by notice published in the prescribed manner, call upon the Manager and all other persons having interest, to show cause why such institution should not be declared to be subject to the provisions of this Chapter. (2) Such notice shall state the reasons for the action proposed and specify a reasonable time, not being less than one month from the date of issue of the notice, for showing such cause." 5. A plain reading of Sub-section (1) of Section 43 of the said Act indicates that the show cause notice can be issued only in a case (i) where the Commissioner has a reason to believe that the Hindu Religious Institution in question is being mismanaged; and (ii) he is satisfied that in the interest of administration, it is necessary to take proceedings for notifying the temple as a declared institution. 6. The import of the expression "reason to believe" was considered by the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs ITO1. The Supreme Court held that the reasons to believe is not merely a subjective satisfaction. 1 (1961) 41 ITR 191 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32365-DB WA No. 578 of 2026 7. In ITO vs Lakhmani Mewal Das2, the Supreme Court explained that the said expression "reason to believe" cannot be conflated with the "reasons to suspect". We also consider it apposite to refer to the following passage from a recent decision of the Supreme Court in CIT vs Mohan3. "68. Notice under Section 6(1) cannot be issued in respect of properties for which the competent authority has no evidence or material to record “reasons to believe” that the properties were acquired from the assets or money provided by the convict/ detenu. The expression “reasons to believe” is a phrase used in several enactments and interpreted by this Court to mean not “mere subjective satisfaction” based on surmise and conjecture, but a belief that is “honest and based upon reasonable grounds”. [Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Commr. of Customs, (2015) 11 SCC 628] The satisfaction should be based upon objective material and not mere feeling or inkling. [Kewal Krishan v. State of Punjab, 1962 SCC OnLine SC 355 : AIR 1967 SC 737] The requirement is deliberately legislated as a check against frivolous and rowing inquiries based upon mere suspicion and pretence. [Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar, (1976) 2 SCC 291] The reasons to believe to be valid should refer to facts that have a rational connection or relevant bearing to the formation of belief and should not be extraneous or irrelevant for the purpose [S. Narayanappa v. CIT, 1966 SCC OnLine SC 173 : AIR 1967 SC 523] of initiation of inquiry under Section 6 of the Act. 2 (1976) 3 SCC 757 3 (2023) 20 SCC 673 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32365-DB WA No. 578 of 2026 8. Sub-section (1) of Section 43 of the said Act makes it amply clear that it is the Commissioner who is required to have such reasons to believe that the institution is being mismanaged. Further, Sub-section (1) of Section 43 of the said Act requires the Commissioner to be satisfied that it is necessary to initiate proceedings in the interest of administration of the institution in question. The existence of a reason to believe that the institution has been mismanaged, and satisfaction that it is necessary to initiate proceedings, is sine qua non for the issuance of a show- cause notice. 9. In the present case, the show-cause notice has not been issued by the Commissioner. Thus, the condition that the concerned authority (Commissioner) has reasons to believe that the religious institution has been mismanaged and is satisfied that the proceedings are to be initiated has not been met. 10. In the aforesaid view, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that in the given facts, interference of the court would be warranted. Since the jurisdictional conditions for issuance of a show cause notice and commencing the proceedings under - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32365-DB WA No. 578 of 2026 Sections 42 and 43 of the said Act were not satisfied, the Government Order, issued on the culmination of the said proceedings, would not be sustainable. 11. We find no infirmity with the impugned order. The appeal is unmerited and is accordingly, dismissed. 12. The pending interlocutory application also stands disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE AHB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 28