P. VISHWANATHA SHETTY, J. ( 1 ) IN this appeal, the appellants have called in question the correctness of the order dated 14th October, 2004 made in Writ Petition No. 31057 of 2004 by the learned Single Judge. In the impugned order, the learned single Judge has quashed the communication dated 11th May, 2004, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-A to the writ petition. In annexure-A, the 1st appellant has rejected the request of the respondent-temple to disburse the surplus amounts of the temple to various institutions. The learned Single Judge has quashed the impugned order primarily on the ground that on an earlier occasion having permitted similar donations being made to various institutions, the 1st appellant was not justified in passing the impugned order. ( 2 ) SRI Ramanjaneya Gowda, learned Additional Government advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that in the light of the provisions contained in the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and charitable Endowments Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 'the New act'), the 1st appellant was justified in passing the impugned order annexure-A. It is his submission that the donations permitted by the 1st appellant referred to by the learned Single Judge in his order relates to the period prior to coming into force of the New Act. ( 3 ) HOWEVER, Sri Padubidri Raghavendra Rao, learned Counsel for the respondent while strongly supporting the impugned order submitted that since the amounts are received by the respondent-temple from the members of the public, the respondent-temple must be allowed to disburse the said amount for the benefit of public at large. In other words, it is his submission, if other charitable or religious institutions who are discharging public duty for the benefit of the public come forward seeking donations from the respondent-temple, keeping in mind the larger public interest and the nature of activities that are being carried out by such institutions, if the respondent-temple is satisfied that the said institutions have been established either for charitable or religious purposes and are carrying on the objects for which they came to be established, the respondent-temple must be allowed to disburse the amount collected by it from the members of public for the good of the public by releasing the said amount in favour of such institutions. It is his submission that by means of a general order it is not permissible for the 1st appellant to reject the request made by the respondent to disburse the amount to various charitable and religious institutions. Elaborating his submission, the learned Counsel pointed out that if the amounts are required for the purpose of a hospital or for the purpose of financing for mid-day meal to the school children or for any educational purposes or such other similar charitable or religious purposes, the respondent-temple must be permitted to disburse the amount, however, subject to approval of the appellants. ( 4 ) THE only question that would arise for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge calls for interference? ( 5 ) AT para 2 of the order the learned Single Judge has noticed that the New Act has been stayed by this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 14820 to 14822 of 2003. Further, we are also of the view as rightly pointed out by Sri Raghavendra Rao that when the respondent-temple receives funds from members of public, the respondent-temple must be allowed to utilise the said funds for the public good. It cannot be disputed that the respondent-temple is a religious institution and the money received by the respondent-temple is from the devotees who are religious. Therefore, when the funds are collected by the temple from the members of public, it is just and proper to permit the temple to utilise the same for the good of the public, namely, for charitable purposes like financing for maintenance or development or establishment of a hospital or establishment of educational institutions of charitable nature and which are not in commercial nature; or financing for mid-day meal provided to children in educational institutions. Therefore, when a request is made by the respondent-temple, the authorities concerned will have to keep in mind whether the funds are sought to be distributed for a laudable object like charitable or religious purposes or any other private purposes. If the object of disbursement of funds is for charitable or religious purposes and if such fund is disbursed within reasonable limits, keeping in mind the total funds available in the respondent- temple, normally the authorities cannot refuse to accord permission for the request made by the respondent-temple. If the object of disbursement of funds is for charitable or religious purposes and if such fund is disbursed within reasonable limits, keeping in mind the total funds available in the respondent- temple, normally the authorities cannot refuse to accord permission for the request made by the respondent-temple. Therefore, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was justified in quashing order annexure-A. However, liberty is reserved to the appellants to consider the request of the respondent-temple with reference to each institution and take appropriate decision in the light of the observation made above by us and in accordance with law. Further, it is also made clear that in a given case if the authorities are satisfied that the funds are not being disbursing keeping in mind the interest of the public at large and it is for private purpose and the purpose for which it is not genuine, the authorities are at liberty to reject the request. ( 6 ) THE appellants are directed to take a decision with regard to the request made by the respondent-temple to accord permission, as expeditiously as possible and at any event of the matter not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ( 7 ) SUBJECT to the observation made above, this appeal rejected. --- *** --- .