ORDER : SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J. 1. Petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs; a. To issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order Annexure-A dated 2.3.2015 passed by the 1 st respondent in Case No.DVS:LAW:CR 53/2013-14. b. Such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case. 2. A complaint had been lodged by respondent No.2 on 28.08.2013 under Section 69(B) of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutional Charitable Endowment Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1997”) alleging that the petitioner-Trust being a notified institution, was collecting funds on behalf of the notified Institution without sanction of the prescribed authority. 3. The complaint was received by the Deputy Commissioner, who issued a notice to the Petitioner, which was replied to. Thereafter, the matter had been taken up, the Deputy Commissioner passed the impugned order dated 02.03.2015, holding that a sum of Rs.2,29,452/- had been collected by the petitioner-Trust without authorisation from the prescribed authority. A sale of the property had been secured by the Trust on 26.07.2007 without such authorisation, and a gift deed dated 4.09.2013 was made in the name of the Trust and was directed to be entered in the name of the temple. It is challenging the same, that the Petitioner before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. 4. Sri.Vyasa Rao.K.S., learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that; 4.1. Section 69(B) of the Act of 1997 came to be inserted in the Act of 1997 by way of Amendment Act No.27 of 2011, which came into effect from 04.05.2011. He therefore, submits that any transaction which has occurred prior to 04.05.2011 cannot be covered by Section 69(B) of the Act of 1997, since the said amended section would be prospective in nature and cannot be applied retrospectively, there is a bar which has been imposed subject to certain permission, which can never be considered to be retrospective in nature. 4.2. Secondly, he submits that a complaint has been made to the Deputy Commissioner, who has issued a notice and conducted enquiry, which could not be so conducted in terms of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowment Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “ Rules of 2002 ”). 4.3. His submission is that the authorisation is granted to specific authorities for different categories of temples. 4.3. His submission is that the authorisation is granted to specific authorities for different categories of temples. Insofar as Category-A temple is concerned it would be the Commissioner, insofar as Category-B the Deputy Commissioner and insofar as Category-C the Assistant Commissioner. 4.4. Insofar as the present Petitioner is concerned it is Category-C institution, since the gross annual income does not exceed Rs.5 lakh. He therefore submits that the Deputy Commissioner could not have conducted the enquiry, it ought to have been the Assistant Commissioner who ought to have conducted the enquiry. 4.5. He relies upon decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Dhampur Sugar Mills ltd., vs. State of U.P. & others reported in (2007) 8 SCC 338 more particularly para 23 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference. 23. As to alternative remedy available to the writ petitioner, a finding has been recorded by the High Court in favour of the writ petitioner and the same has not been challenged by the State before us. Even otherwise, from the record, it is clear that the decision has been taken by the Government. Obviously in such cases, remedy of appeal cannot be termed as “alternative”, or “equally efficacious”. Once a policy decision has been taken by the Government, filing of appeal is virtually from “Caesar to Caesar's wife”, an “empty formality” or “futile attempt”. The High Court was, therefore, right in overruling the preliminary objection raised by the respondents. 4.6. By relying on Dhampur’s case he submission is that even though there is an alternative remedy which is available the order which has been passed is without jurisdiction and as such this court could exercise its power to intercede in the matter. 5. Sri.C.Amruthesh., learned counsel for respondent No.2-Complainant submits that; 5.1. Even if there were donations received prior to the insertion of Section 69(B) of the Act of 1997, an enquiry could be initiated and necessary orders passed under Section 69(B) of the Act of 1997, since there was no permission which were obtained by the Petitioner-Trust from the prescribed authority. 5.2. His further submission is that insofar as one of the transactions for a sum of Rs.25,000/- the same occurred on 24.07.2011 i.e., after the amendment. 5.2. His further submission is that insofar as one of the transactions for a sum of Rs.25,000/- the same occurred on 24.07.2011 i.e., after the amendment. So, also the gift deed came to be registered on 04.05.2013, which is after the amendment and as such, he submits that these two transactions would, even if the submission of the counsel for the Petitioner be accepted, fall foul of Section 69(B). 5.3. His further submission is that in terms of Section 63 of the Act of 1997, the Petitioner has alternative efficacies remedy in terms of a Revision Petition to be made to the Commissioner and the present writ petition is not maintainable. Thus, he submits that the Petition is required to be dismissed. 6. Sri.Mahantesh Shattar., learned AGA for respondent No.1 would submit that; 6.1. The Deputy Commissioner has the necessary power and authority to conduct an enquiry in terms of Section 50 of the Act of 1997. He submits that the Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner may suo-moto or on receipt of a complaint in writing by any person, institute an enquiry. 6.2. Thus, he submits that there is no distinction, as such between the Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner, any of them who receives a complaint can institute an enquiry. The parent statute providing for the same in terms of Section 50 of the Act of 1997, the question of reference to Rules of 2002, more particularly Rule 3 would not arise. 6.3. The Rules cannot override the statute and as such on the basis of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 2002, it cannot be contended that it is only the Assistant Commissioner who can institute an enquiry in terms of Category-C notified Institution. 6.4. He therefore submits that the contention of the counsel for the Petitioner in that regard would have to be rejected. 7. Heard Heard Sri.Vyasa Rao.K.S., learned counsel for the Petitioner, Sri.Mahantesh Shattar., learned AGA for respondent No.1 and Sri.C.Amruthesh., learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused papers. 8. The points that would arise for the determination of this Court are; 1. Is Section 69(B) of the Act of 1997 retrospective or prospective and coming into effect from 04.05.2011? 2. 7. Heard Heard Sri.Vyasa Rao.K.S., learned counsel for the Petitioner, Sri.Mahantesh Shattar., learned AGA for respondent No.1 and Sri.C.Amruthesh., learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused papers. 8. The points that would arise for the determination of this Court are; 1. Is Section 69(B) of the Act of 1997 retrospective or prospective and coming into effect from 04.05.2011? 2. Can the Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner conduct an enquiry regarding Category-C notified Institution in terms of Section 50 of the Act of 1997 dehors Rule 3 of the Rules of 2002? 3. Is the present Petition not maintainable on account of an alternative efficacious remedy being available in terms of the Revision petition under Section 63 of the Act of 1997? 4. What order? 9. I answer above points are as under; 10. Answer to point No.1: Is Section 69(B) of the Act of 1997 retrospective or prospective and coming into effect from 04.05.2011? 10.1. Section 69(B) of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowment Act, 1997 is reproduced hereunder for easy reference; 69B. Bar from collecting fund on behalf of notified institutions or declared institutions.- (1) No individual, organisation, Seva Samithi or development committee registered or not, shall be entitled to collect seva fund or donation for any purpose in the name of the notified or institution or declared institution unless it is sanctioned by the prescribed authority. (2) The prescribed authority is competent to hold enquiry under section 50 and pass orders on the complaint received from any devotee or public about the unauthorised collection of fund in the name of any notified or declared institution, including the order to confiscate and to credit such fund to the account of the concerned institution.” 10.2. A perusal of Section 69(B) would indicate that there is a bar from collecting funds on behalf of notified institutions or declared institutions. In terms of Sub-section (1) of Section 69(B) no individual, organisation, Seva Samithi or development committee, registered or not, shall be entitled to collect Seva fund or donation for any purpose in the name of the notified Institution or declared Institution unless it is sanctioned by the prescribed authority. 10.3. In terms of Sub-section (1) of Section 69(B) no individual, organisation, Seva Samithi or development committee, registered or not, shall be entitled to collect Seva fund or donation for any purpose in the name of the notified Institution or declared Institution unless it is sanctioned by the prescribed authority. 10.3. In terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 69(B), the prescribed authority is competent to hold enquiry under Section 50 and pass orders on the complaint received from any devotee or public about the unauthorised collection of funds in the name of any notified or declared Institution including the order to confiscate and to credit such funds to the account of the concerned Institution. 10.4. Section 69(B) was inserted by Act 27 of 2011 with effect from 04.05.2011. It is a trite law that any amendment is always prospective in nature unless otherwise indicated. There is no particular indication making the Act No.27 of 2011 retrospective in nature. Thus, on the face of it, Act No.27 of 2011 would have to be held to be prospective coming into effect from 04.05.2011. 10.5. There is one other reason for this, inasmuch as by way of insertion of Section 69(B) there is a prohibition which has been introduced. Thus, the prohibition would come into effect only from 04.05.2011 inasmuch as the said prohibition cannot be made to apply retrospectively to any collection of funds or donation prior to 04.05.2011 requiring an enquiry to be held under Sub-section (2) of Section 69(B). 10.6. The Collection of funds is made unauthorised except if sanctioned by the prescribed authority. That is to say, if sanctioned by the prescribed authority the collection of funds would not be unauthorised. Hence, for this reason also, the said amendment introducing Section 69(B) cannot be said to be retrospective, but can only be said to be prospective, requiring the notified Institution or declared Institution to approach the prescribed authority for permission to collect Seva fund or donation, and if so sanctioned by the prescribed authority to collect such Seva fund or donation in terms of the sanctioned granted. Needless to say, if the prescribed authority does not sanction the same, no such collection of Seva fund or donation can be made. 10.7. Needless to say, if the prescribed authority does not sanction the same, no such collection of Seva fund or donation can be made. 10.7. In that view of the matter, I answer point No.1 by holding that Section 69(B) of the Act of 1997 is prospective coming into effect from 04.05.2011 and as such would apply to any Act or event post 04.05.2011 and not in respect of any act of collection of Seva fund or donation prior to 4.5.2011. 11. Answer to point No.2. Can the Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner conduct an enquiry regarding Category-C notified Institution in terms of Section 50 of the Act of 1997 dehors Rule 3 of the Rules of 2002? 11.1. Rule 3 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institution and Charitable Endowment Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 2002”) is reproduced here under for easy reference; 3. Classification of the notified institutions and their prescribed authorities . (1) For the Purpose of the act and these rules, the notified institutions are classified under the following categories, namely-. Category ‘A’ notified institutions whose gross annual income exceeds (rupees twenty-five lakhs) Category 'B’ notified institutions whose gross annual income exceeds (rupees five lakhs but does not exceed rupees twenty- five lakhs) Category ‘C’ notified institutions whose gross annual income does not exceed (rupees five lakhs) (2) Subject to the provisions of the Act, the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner shall respectively be the prescribed authorities for ‘A’, ‘B’, and ‘C’categories of notified institutions. 11.2. In terms of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 there is classification of notified institutions as category A, B and C on the basis of their gross annual income. It it exceeds Rs.25 lakhs than Category A, between 5 lakshs to 25 lakhs – Category B, does not exceed Rs.5 lakhs – category C. 11.3. In the present case, we are concerned with the petitioner-institution which has a gross annual income which does not exceed Rs.5 lakhs, there being no dispute on the same either by the Petitioner, State or the complainant. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner-institution is a category-C notified Institution having gross annual income less than Rs.5 lakhs. 11.4. In the present case, we are concerned with the petitioner-institution which has a gross annual income which does not exceed Rs.5 lakhs, there being no dispute on the same either by the Petitioner, State or the complainant. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner-institution is a category-C notified Institution having gross annual income less than Rs.5 lakhs. 11.4. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 indicates that subject to the provision of the Act, the Commissioners, the Deputy Commissioners and the Assistant Commissioner shall respectively be the prescribed authorities for A, B and C categories, category of notified Institution i.e., to say for Category-A it would be the Commissioner, for Category-B it would be the Deputy Commissioner and for Category-C it would be the Assistant Commissioner. 11.5. Needless to further say, the Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner can only be the prescribed authority in respect of their respective category and not otherwise. 11.6. The submission of Sri.Mahantesh Shattar, learned Additional Government Advocate by relying on Section 50 of the Act No.27 of 1997 is that it is either the Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner who may suo moto or on receipt of a complaint in writing from any person having interest in any notified institution or declared Institution, can institute an enquiry with regard to such Institution either generally or for any particular purpose. Section 50 is reproduced hereunder for easy reference; 50. Power to institute and hold enquiries. (1)The Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner may suo-motu or on receipt of a complaint in writing from any person having interest in any Notified Institution or Declared Institution, institute an enquiry with regard to the Institution either generally or for any particular purpose. (2)The Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner may either hold the enquiry himself or authorise any officer subordinate to him to hold the enquiry and the officer authorised to hold the enquiry shall after the enquiry, submit his report to the authorising officer. (3)For the purpose of any such enquiry, the officer holding the enquiry may, by notice, require any person to attend at a specified time and place and give evidence or produce documents which are in his custody or control and which relate to any matter in question at the enquiry. (3)For the purpose of any such enquiry, the officer holding the enquiry may, by notice, require any person to attend at a specified time and place and give evidence or produce documents which are in his custody or control and which relate to any matter in question at the enquiry. (4)Necessary expenses of any person for appearing to give evidence or produce documents for the purpose of the enquiry shall be paid in the manner prescribed. (5)The Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner to whom the report is submitted under sub-section (2) shall forward the same to the Commissioner, who shall, if he is satisfied that there is a prima facie case against the Chairman, Executive Officer or other person connected with the Management of the Institution, take such steps as are necessary under the provisions of this Act, to protect the interest of the Institution. (6)The Commissioner may at any stage of the enquiry call for the records of enquiry and examine the legality of any steps taken or order made and pass such order as he deems fit. 11.7. The submission of the learned Additional Government Advocate is that since the disjunctive or has been used in Sub-section (1)of Section 50, the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner may suo moto or on receipt of a complaint institute an enquiry. Thus, the contention is that a Commissioner or a Deputy Commissioner can institute an enquiry in respect of a notified category C institution. 11.8. In the present case, the Deputy Commissioner, having received the complaint has instituted an enquiry which cannot be found fault with, I am unable to agree with the submission of Additional Government Advocate, in as much as though Section 50 prescribes a general mode of enquiry and the officers who could conduct the enquiry. 11.9. In terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 69(B), the prescribed authority is competent to hold enquiry under Section 50 and pass orders on the complaint received from any devotee or public about the unauthorised collection of funds in the name of any notified or declared Institution including the order to confiscate and to credit such funds to the account of the concerned Institution. The usage of the word prescribed would therefore have to be read in conjunction with the category of the Institution, else the purpose of prescription itself would be lost. 11.10. The usage of the word prescribed would therefore have to be read in conjunction with the category of the Institution, else the purpose of prescription itself would be lost. 11.10. Rule 3 clearly mandates and confers power on each particular authority with respect to each particular category. There would be no meaning which could be assigned to the rules if by referring to Section 50 it could be contended that either the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner can order an enquiry. Hence, resulting in a complaint being filed by a third party before any of the three authorities without reference to Rule 3 of the Rules of 2002. 11.11. The said rule has been formulated to bring about administrative efficiency, clearly categorising the officer who will be entitled to exercise powers in respect of that particular category of the notified Institution. 11.12. In the present case as indicated supra, there being no dispute as regards the Petitioner being a category-C institution. It would be required, therefore, for the Assistant Commissioner to exercise powers and not for the Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner in terms of Section 50 read subsection (2) of Section 68 further read with Rule 3. 11.13. Hence, I answer point No.2 by holding that the Commissioner can exercise powers in respect of Category-A institutions, the Deputy Commissioner in respect of Category-B institutions, the Assistant Commissioner in respect of Category-C institutions, under Section 50 of the Act of 1997 and Rule 3 of the Rules of 2002. 11.14. To put it in other words, the Assistant Commissioner cannot exercise powers to conduct an enquiry in respect of Category A or B. The Deputy Commissioner cannot exercise powers to conduct an enquiry in respect of Category A or C. The Commissioner cannot exercise powers to conduct an enquiry in respect of category B or C, these powers being institutionalised and compartmentalised, those prescriber officers would alone have to exercise their powers in terms of Section 50 of the Act read with Rule 3 of the Rules of 2002. 12. Answer to point No.3; Is the present Petition not maintainable on account of an alternative efficacious remedy being available in terms of the Revision petition under Section 63 of the Act of 1997? 12.1. 12. Answer to point No.3; Is the present Petition not maintainable on account of an alternative efficacious remedy being available in terms of the Revision petition under Section 63 of the Act of 1997? 12.1. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has sought to contend that there is an alternative efficacy remedy in terms of Section 63 of the Act, 1997. The said Section 63 is reproduced hereunder for easy reference; 63. Revisions! Powers of Commissioner: (1)The Commissioner may call for and examine the records and proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the finding or order recorded or passed by the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner and may either annul, reverse, modify or confirm the said finding or order or may direct the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner to make further enquiry or take such additional evidence as he may think necessary or he may himself take the additional evidence :Provided that the Commissioner shall not record or pass any order without giving the party affected thereby an opportunity of being heard. (2)Nothing in sub-section (1) shall entitle the Commissioner to call for and examine the record of any case during the period in which an appeal can lie or after an order has been passed by him on such appeal. 12.2. A perusal thereof would indicate that the Commissioner may call for and examine the records of the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or the Committee of Management or the Executive Officer for the purpose of satisfying himself as to correctness of finding or order recorded or passed by the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner. 12.3. These revisional powers are to be exercised in a situation where the authority exercising the original powers had an authority and jurisdiction to do so. The revisional powers under Section 63 is surmised on the principle that the order passed by the concerned authority has been passed in accordance with law by exercising the powers and authority conferred on that particular provision. 12.4. The revisional powers under Section 63 is surmised on the principle that the order passed by the concerned authority has been passed in accordance with law by exercising the powers and authority conferred on that particular provision. 12.4. In the event of the Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner exercising any powers which were not conferred on such Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner, then the exercise of such powers is not permitted, though revisional powers can be exercised by the Commissioner, the same would not preclude this court from exercising powers in a fit case to render justice, rather than relegating the parties to another round of litigation. 12.5. Such being the case, I am of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in the present case, though would be amenable for revisional powers considering that the matter is pending for last 10 years, relegating the parties to revisional jurisdiction would couse injustice. 12.6. As indicated in answer to Point No.2 supra, it is clear that in respect of Category-C temple it is only the Assistant Commissioner who can exercise powers in terms of Rule 3 of the Rules of 2002 and not the Deputy Commissioner who can exercise powers in respect of only Category-B institutions. 12.7. Hence, I answer Point No.3 by holding that the present Petition is maintainable and the revisional Powers under Section 63 of the Act of 1997 though an alternative remedy can not be in this case be said to be an efficacious remedy after a gap of 10 years. 13. Answer to point No.4; What order? 13.1. In view of my findings in respect of point Nos.1 to 3, I pass the following:- ORDER i. The writ Petition is allowed. ii. A certiorari is issued, the impugned order at Annexure A dated 02.03.2015 passed by respondent No.1 is hereby quashed. iii. Liberty is however, reserved to the Assistant Commissioner to exercise powers of enquiry in respect of transactions and/or the receipt of donation, gift etc., post 04.05.2011 in terms of Section 69(B) of the Act of 1997.