- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010008202014 NC: 2026:KHC:47885-DB WA No. 861 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN WRIT APPEAL NO. 861 OF 2014 (GM-R/C) BETWEEN: SHRIMAN NIRANJAN JAGADGURU DR.TONTADA SIDDALINGA MAHASWAMIJI, GADAG, SINCE DEAD BY LR/ SUCCESSOR SHRIMAN NIRANJAN JAGADGURU TONTADA SIDDARAMA MAHASWAMIJI GADAG, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 10TH PEETHADIPATHI SHRI TONTADA SIDDALINGESHWAR SWAMIJI, SHRI TONTADASWAMI MATH, YEDIYUR, TQ: KUNIGAL DIST:TUMKUR-572142. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S.PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. MOHAMMED TAHIR., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDINGS BANGALORE-560 001 Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010008202014 NC: 2026:KHC:47885-DB WA No. 861 of 2014 2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS KARNATAKA, BANGALORE 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR DISTRICT TUMKUR 4. M.NAGARAJAIAH S/O MAHESHWARAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC:TEACHER, R/O SRHIMANJUNATH SHIVADEVALAYA, 4TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 2ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE 5. Y.P. SHIVAGANGASHETTY, S/O. PUTTAGANGASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. YEDEYUR, TQ: KUNIGAL, DIST:TUMKUR 6. Y.N.SAMPATH, S/O. NINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O.YEDEYUR, TQ: KUNIGAL, DIST:TUMKUR 7. Y.V. PRAKASH, S/O.VENKATARAMATH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURIST, R/O.YEDEYUR, TQ: KUNIGAL, DIST:TUMKUR - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010008202014 NC: 2026:KHC:47885-DB WA No. 861 of 2014 8. SHANKARMURTHY S/O.SHANMUGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURIST, R/O. YEDEYUR, TQ:KUNIGAL, DIST:TUMKUR 9. A.E. ANANDAKUMAR, S/O. ISHWARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. YEDEYUR, TQ: KUNIGAL, DIST:TUMKUR 10. G.M.KUMAR S/O MUDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURIST, R/O YEDEYUR TALUK KUNIGAL DISTRICT TUMKUR 11. MAHADEVAIAH S/O GANGADHARAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURIST, R/O YEDEYUR, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT 12. M.N.RANGASWAMAIAH S/O M.P.NANJUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURIST, YEDEYUR, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572101 - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010008202014 NC: 2026:KHC:47885-DB WA No. 861 of 2014 13. C.G.MAHESH S/O C.S.GANGADHARAYA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS, R/O YEDEYAR, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572101 14. PUTTAMADAIAH S/O K.MADAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURIST R/O YEDEYUR, KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. I.THARANATH POOJARY, AAG FOR SRI. S.H.RAGHAVENDRA, AGA FOR R1-R3; SRI. K.M.VASANTH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4, R10, R11, R13 AND R14; R5 Y P SHIVAGANGA SHETTY SERVED; R6 Y N SAMPATH SERVED; R12 M N RANGASWAMAIAH SERVED; VIDE ORDER DATED:19.09.2016 R7- Y V PRAKASH SERVED; R9 A E ANANDKUMAR ARE DULY SERVED VIDE ORDER DATED 19/06/2017 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R8 IS COMPLETED (R8-SHANKARAMURTHY)) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.6542/2009 DATED 19/2/2014. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010008202014 NC: 2026:KHC:47885-DB WA No. 861 of 2014 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) The present intra Court Appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 19.02.2014 passed by the writ Court in W.P.No.6542/2009 (GM-R/C). 2. The writ petition was filed by the appellant seeking a prayer to quash the order dated 15.12.2008 passed by respondent No.1 - the State Government under Section 23 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997, (for brevity 'the Endowment Act') whereby the Yediyur Siddalingeshwara Swamiji Mutt and the Mutt at Kaggere, Kunigal, were included in the Notification dated 30.04.2003 published in the Official Gazette dated 01.05.2003. 3. The writ petition came to be dismissed. However, it was observed that the parties may approach the Civil Court to - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010008202014 NC: 2026:KHC:47885-DB WA No. 861 of 2014 establish their rights to manage the aforesaid Mutts in a Civil Court in appropriate proceedings. 4. Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the appellant had moved an application in the year 2008 for deleting the said Institution/Mutt from the Notification dated 30.04.2003 issued under Section 23 of the Endowment Act. The said application came to be rejected by the Government vide order dated 15.12.2008. 5. We have perused the order dated 15.12.2008. We find no reasons discernible in the order to deny the request of the appellant for de-notification. Sri Jayakumar S. Patil therefore, submits that the order dated 15.12.2008 passed by the Government is unsustainable. If an authority has power to do something, it will have the power to undo the same thing as provided under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. 6. It is further submitted that learned Single Judge instead of deciding the validity or the legality of the order dated 15.12.2008 has taken a wrong decision to say that the parties - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010008202014 NC: 2026:KHC:47885-DB WA No. 861 of 2014 should approach the Civil Court for decision in respect of their rights to manage the Mutts. The subject matter before the writ Court was the Order dated 15.12.2008 whereby the appellant had requested for deletion of the Mutts from the Notification dated 30.04.2003, which were notified under Section 23 of the Endowment Act. 7. On the other hand, Sri Tharanath I Poojary, learned AAG assisted by Sri. S.H. Raghavendra, learned AGA submits that whether the Institution is a Mutt or it is Temple or it is of different nature, is a question which can be decided in the civil suit, who has the authority, and as to who would be entitled to manage the affairs of the said Institution are all questions to be decided in the appropriate civil suit. In the garb of moving an application before the Government to de-notify the said Institutions/Mutts and to delete it from the Notification dated 30.04.2003, the appellant intends to take control of the Mutts and manage its affairs. Such a dispute cannot be decided in a writ petition, it has to be decided in a civil suit. 8. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010008202014 NC: 2026:KHC:47885-DB WA No. 861 of 2014 9. The question before this Court is the order dated 15.12.2008 whereby the request/application of the appellant to de-notify/delete the Institutions/Mutts from the Notification dated 30.04.2003 issued under Section 23 of the Endowment Act, was rejected. It is the Government which has notified the Institutions/Mutts under Section 23 in the Notification dated 30.04.2003 and therefore, if there is material which would suggest that the Institution ought not to have been notified under Section 23, the Government should consider such an application for deletion and take an appropriate decision on the application in accordance with the law. 10. The impugned order dated 19.02.2014 however, suggests that no reasons are coming forth for de-notification. Be that as it may. We are of the view, that the matter should be remanded back to the Government to consider afresh the application of the appellant for de-notification of the Institutions/Yediyur Sidda Lingeshwara Swami Mutt and Mutt at Kageri, Kunigal. 11. We therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 19.02.2014 passed by the - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010008202014 NC: 2026:KHC:47885-DB WA No. 861 of 2014 writ Court in W.P.No.6542/2009 (GM-R/C) and remand the matter back to the Government to consider afresh the request/application of the appellant for de-notification of the aforesaid Mutts in accordance with the law, after giving an opportunity to the appellant and all other interested persons. All contentions are left open. The parties are at liberty to file evidence in support of their cases. The Government should consider the material placed before it and pass a reasoned order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties. We request the Government to dispose of the applications of the appellant within period of 2 months. 12. We direct the petitioner to appear before the Rajya Dharmika Parishath. We permit the appellant to file a fresh representation in continuation of its earlier representation seeking for de-notification of the Institutions/Mutts from the Notification dated 30.04.2008. Rajya Dharmika Parishath to consider the, representations as directed and make appropriate - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010008202014 NC: 2026:KHC:47885-DB WA No. 861 of 2014 recommendations to the Government within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN) JUDGE NG CT:SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29