Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 504 (KAR)

Venkatesha Manja v. State of Karnataka

2008-09-12

N.K.PATIL

body2008
ORDER 1. Sri. Narendra Prasad, learned HCGP, is directed to take notice for Respondents 1 and 2. With consent of both the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for petitioners and the learned HCGP, appearing for respondents-authorities. 3. In the instant writ petition, the petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents-1 to 4 to maintain the temple in question as it exists at pre-sent, except attending to wear and tear of the construction and to preserve the same to safeguard the mythological and historical importance achieved by the temple over the years, right from 8th Century. 4. The principal contentions of the petitioners who are claiming to be the hereditary trustees of Goddess Sri. 4. The principal contentions of the petitioners who are claiming to be the hereditary trustees of Goddess Sri. Durga Parameshwari temple (hereinafter referred to as temple for short) situated at Cherkady village, Udupi Taluk are that the temple in question is owned and managed by the State of Karnataka, through Muzarai Department in co-ordination with the hereditary trustees of the temple under the provisions of Karnataka Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1997 (present Act); that the said temple got mythological and historical importance, as the same is established in the 8th century; taking advantage of completion of tenure of present managing committee by efflux of time, the respondents-6 and 7 who were the members of erstwhile managing committee, with an intention of amassing the wealth through public donation in the guise of re-construction of the temple, making efforts to demolish the existing temple illegally; that the respondents-6 and 7 hatched a plan to remove the deity of the temple contrary to Vasthu Rules based on Asthamangala and Arodu Prashna which is not recognized either under vedic rules or recognized astrological theories; that the respondents-6 and 7, without following the Agama Shastra which is a ancient script and rules followed by the Hindu temples for installation of deities and construction of temple or its renovation; that the respondents-6 and 7, with a mala fide intention to export the deity itself for financial gain of crores of rupees to foreign country and in its place, they intend to substitute of a newly created one of similar posture and published pamphlets to that effect on 14-9-2008; that in spite of petitioners request to protect the temple from the high handed acts of the respondents-6 and 7, the respondent No. 3 has failed to take any action in the matter and remained callous and therefore, they preferred the present writ petition. 5. On careful perusal of the material on record it emerges that petitioners have got an alternate and efficacious remedies under the provisions of the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Religious and Charitable Endowments Act to redress their grievances before the respondents-3 and 4. However, there is no iota of documents produced by the petitioners to establish that they approached either respondents 3 or respondent No. 4 who are competent and jurisdictional authorities for redressal of their grievances. However, there is no iota of documents produced by the petitioners to establish that they approached either respondents 3 or respondent No. 4 who are competent and jurisdictional authorities for redressal of their grievances. Without exhausting the alternative remedy, the petitioners have rushed to this Court by preferring the instant writ petition. 6. In the light of the facts and circumstances narrated above and in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for petitioners without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter this Court is of the considered view that writ petition is liable to be dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioners to approach the competent jurisdictional authorities to redress their grievances. Hence, the following order is made. 7. Writ petition is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to avail alternate remedy, as provided under the provisions of the relevant Act by filing necessary application/representation before the Respondents-3 and 4 to redress their grievances. If such application/representation is filed by the petitioners, the competent authority shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than the outer limit of two months from the date of filing of such representation. 8. Sri. C. Narendra Prasad, learned HCGP, is permitted to file his memo of appearance within two weeks. 9. Petition dismissed.