WP/21644/2026 of NAGARAJU Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA on 7 September 2026

ORAL ORDER

The present writ petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs:

"Wherefore, the petitioners respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to:

a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and quashing the impugned O.M dated 17.03.2026 passed by the respondent No.4 in case No.D.V.S.157/2025-26 as per Annexure-A and;

b) Pass any other appropriate order/orders as deem fit by this Hon'ble Court to the facts and circumstances of the case, with an order as to costs, in the interest of justice and equity. "

2. The primary ground on which the petitioners assails the impugned order dated 17.03.2026 passed in case No.D.V.S.157/2025-26 (Annexure-A to the writ petition) is that the same has been passed by respondent No.4 /Tahasildar, who is not empowered to do so.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri. Udayakumar Poojari V.s The Commissioner

HC-KAR

and others1 submits that respondent No.4 / Tahasildar, is not empowered to pass the order in terms of the provisions of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institution and Charitable Endowment Act, 19972. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri. Udayakumar Poojari1, referring to various provisions of the Act, have held that the power of appointment of Archaka under the Provisions of the Act is required to exercised by the Deputy Commissioner. The relevant portion of the said order is as under:

"9. Insofar as the impugned order passed by the respondent No.3 is concerned, no doubt he is not an officer authorized under the Act of 1997 to pass any order appointing the respondents No.4 to 13 as the Archakas of the Temple. The respondent No.2 who was seized of the matter could not have orally instructed the respondent No.3 to pass interim orders, more particularly when the Act, 1997 did not authorize him to delegate his judicial function. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.3 being one without jurisdiction, is liable to be set-aside.

10. However, we cannot loose sight of the fact that the respondent No.1 while allowing the revision petition filed by the respondents No.4 to 13 directed the respondent No.2 to make appropriate interim arrangement to ensure continuation of all rituals and ceremonies in the Temple. Since, the question whether the petitioner is entitled to be appointed as Pradhan Archaka or not and whether anyone amongst respondents No.4 to 13 are 1 WP.No.201261/2024 DT 21.05.2024 NC:2024 KHC-K:3291 2 Hereinafter referred as to 'Act'

HC-KAR

entitled to be appointed as Pradhan Archaka or Archaka is yet to be decided by the respondent No.2, it is appropriate to involve both the petitioner and respondents No.4 to 13 in performing the poojas and rituals in the temple, taking into account the interest of the villagers and to ensure the continuation of the religious practices in the Temple."

4. Hence, a similar order is to be passed in the present petition also.

5. In the result, the following:

ORDER

i) The petition is allowed-in-part;

ii) The order dated 17.03.2026 passed in case No.D.V.S.157/2025-26 (Annexure-A to the writ petition) by respondent No.4 /Tahasildar is quashed;

iii) This order shall not preclude the concerned respondents from passing appropriate orders in accordance with the provision of Karnataka Hindu Religious Institution and Charitable Endowment Act, 1997.

(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

PNV - List No.: 1 Sl No.: 90