Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 838 (KAR)

Harikrishna Punaroor v. State of Karnataka

2010-07-26

MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR

body2010
Judgment Mohan Shantanagoudar, J. 1. The third respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Udupi, issued a notification under Section 25 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 (for short hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), calling for applications to appoint the Committee of Management to the 4th respondent temple on 23.6.2009. In response to the said notification, 106 applications were received by the third respondent, including the applications of the petitioners and respondents 5 to 13 Some of the devotees filed objections for appointment of respondent No.9 alleging that he is facing enquiry, etc., as per Annexures-K, L and M. 2. When the facts stood thus, the Chief Minister of Karnataka, issued a note dated 24.7.2009 as per Annexure-D to appoint respondents 5 to 13 as members of the Committee of management of the 4th respondent-temple. This note is received by the second respondent-Commissioner on 25.7.2009. he passed an order at Annexure-A, dated 27.7.2009, appointing the very same 9 persons i.e., respondents 5 to 13 herein as the members of the Managing Committee of the 4th respondent-temple. The order at Annexure-A, dated 27.7.2009 is called in question in these writ petitions. 3. There cannot be any dispute that the note is sent by the Chief Minister as per Annexure-D, dated 24.7.2009, directing to appoint nine persons mentioned in Annexure-D i.e., respondents 5 to 13 as members of the Managing Committee of the 4th respondent. It is also not in dispute that very nine persons, i.e., respondents 5 to 13 are appointed as members of the Managing Committee of the 4th respondent within two days thereafter. No reasons are forthcoming in the impugned order as to why the applications of respondents 5 to 13 are allowed and of other persons are rejected. Thus, it is clear that the appointments so made are bases on the directions of the Chief Minister. 4. Section 25 of the Act reveals as to how the Committee of Management has to be constituted. It prescribes that the Committee shall be constituted by the prescribed authority having regard to the religious denomination to which the institution or any section thereof belongs. No person shall be eligible to be appointed as a member in more than one Committee of Management at one time. It prescribes that the Committee shall be constituted by the prescribed authority having regard to the religious denomination to which the institution or any section thereof belongs. No person shall be eligible to be appointed as a member in more than one Committee of Management at one time. The prescribed authority shall constitute the Committee of Management from among the devotees, donours and followers of the Hindu Religious Institutions or, as the case may be, the endowers and beneficiaries of the charitable endowment in such manner that it consists of (i) Pradhana Archaka or archaka, (ii) atleast one member from among the Scheduled Castes or the schedules Tribes and (iii) atleast five, of whom, two are women from among persons living in the vicinity of the temple. No person shall be qualified for being appointed as a member of the Committee of Management unless he has faith in God; he has attained the age of 25 years; he possesses good conduct and reputation and commands respect in the locality in which the institution is situate; and he has donated or contributed for construction, repair, renovation or development of any hindu religious institution or charitable institution, etc. Rule 22 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Rules, 2002 also prescribes the procedure for constitution of the Committee of Management. The said Rule mandates that the nominations received shall be verified by the prescribed authority or by an Officer authorized by it in this behalf with regard to the age, qualification, disqualification, antecedents, etc, Thus, it is clear that the managing committee members should be selected by the prescribed authority in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 25 of the Act readwith rule 22 of the Rules. The minimum requirement is that the prescribed authority shall get itself satisfied about the age, qualification, disqualification, antecedents, etc. of the members of the Managing Committee by applying his mind on the subject of appointment. In the matter on hand, such a procedure is not followed. The second respondent herein has blind followed the note issued by the Chief Minister. The act is a self-contained Code. All the authorities mentioned therein are statutory authorities. They are bound by the provision of the Act, they must act within the four corners thereof. In the matter on hand, such a procedure is not followed. The second respondent herein has blind followed the note issued by the Chief Minister. The act is a self-contained Code. All the authorities mentioned therein are statutory authorities. They are bound by the provision of the Act, they must act within the four corners thereof. The State, although, have a general control, but such control must be exercised strictly in terms of Article 162 of the Constitution of India. Having regard to the nature and the manner of the control specified therein, it may lay down a policy. Statutory authorities are bound to act in terms thereof, but per se the same does not authorize any Minister including the chief minister to act in derogation of the statutory provisions. Constitution of India does not envisage functioning of the Government through the Chief Minister alone. All governmental orders must comply with the requirements of a statute as also the constitutional provisions. Out Constitution envisages a rule of law and not rule of men. It recognizes that, howsoever high one may be, he is under law and the Constitution. All the constitutional functionaries must, therefore, function within the constitutional limits. In the matter of appointment of Committee of Management, the Minister or the Chief Minister has no say. The Chief Minister or any authority, other than the Statutory authority, therefore, could not entertain any application for appointment of a member to the Committee of the Management nor could issue any order thereon. Even any authority under the Act, including the Appellate Authority cannot issue any direction, except when the mater comes up before it under the statute. Nothing is placed on record to show that the Chief Minister in his capacity as a member of the Cabinet was authorized to deal with the matter of appointment of members of Managing Committee of notified temple in his official capacity. The prescribed authority being statutory body is bound to act strictly in terms of the provisions thereof, it cannot act in derogation of the powers conferred on it. While acting as a statutory authority it must act having regard to the procedure laid down in the Act. It cannot by-pass or ignore the same. Factual Matrix, as indicated in Annexure-D clearly goes to show that office of Chief Minister communicated the note of the Chief Minister to the prescribed authority. While acting as a statutory authority it must act having regard to the procedure laid down in the Act. It cannot by-pass or ignore the same. Factual Matrix, as indicated in Annexure-D clearly goes to show that office of Chief Minister communicated the note of the Chief Minister to the prescribed authority. On the basis of the same. Impugned order is issued. In view of the above and as the impugned order at Annexure-A, is fully based on the note issued by the Chief Minister, the same cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27.7.2009 at Annexure-A, stands quashed. Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly.