Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 196 (KAR)

SRINIVASA THANTHRI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2000-03-07

V.GOPALA GOWDA

body2000
V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER claims that his branch was enjoying the office of thanthra in Sri veerabhadraswamy temple at hiriyadha in udupi taluk, the managing trustee of the temple prevented them and asked the 5th respondent, who belongs to other branch of ancestors, to perform the thanthra. In that connection, it is stated that petitioner filed a petition before the 2nd respondent-commissioner for religious and charitable endowments and obtained an interim Order, which was subsequently vacated on the ground that there was no order passed by the subordinate authority by which the petitioner is aggrieved and consequently the petition came to be dismissed vide order at annexure-b, dated 5-12- 1992. The revision petition filed against that order was also dismissed by the Karnataka appellate tribunal by its order at Annexure-C , dated 28-2-1996. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging those orders on several untenable grounds with a prayer to direct the 4th respondent to adhere to the turn of enjoyment of thanthra in the temple between the two branches at the ratio of 2:1. ( 2 ) THE short point involved in this case is, whether the impugned orders are legal and valid or they warrant interference by this court? ( 3 ) THE correctness or otherwise of the order at Annexure-B passed by the 2nd respondent was the issue before the Karnataka appellate tribunal in the revision petition filed by the petitioner. The tribunal rightly rejected the revision petition holding that 2nd respondent was justified in dismissing the petition of the petitioner as there was no order passed by any authority. Even the 2nd respondent was also justified in dismissing the petition of the petitioner on the same ground. There is nothing in the orders passed by both the authorities. No interference is warranted by this court in exercise of the power under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india. ( 4 ) EVEN otherwise also, admittedly the temple in question is a muzrai temple. Except asserting that petitioner's branch was performing thanthra in the temple, the petitioner has not produced any document to demonstrate the same. On the other hand, an application (la. I) had been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the 4th respondent to produce certain documents. The 4th respondent is the managing trustee of the temple. Except asserting that petitioner's branch was performing thanthra in the temple, the petitioner has not produced any document to demonstrate the same. On the other hand, an application (la. I) had been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the 4th respondent to produce certain documents. The 4th respondent is the managing trustee of the temple. In that capacity he is bound to file documents, statements and accounts to the muzrai department. Nothing prevented the petitioner to apply for certified copies of the documents to prove his claims. No effort is made in that direction. Therefore, it has to be held that petitioner has not established the claim made in the writ petition. ( 5 ) WRIT petition is misconceived and the same is liable to be dis-missed. --- *** --- .