WA/1794/2025 of BHASYAMASWAMY @ N VENKATACHAR Vs NARAYANA BHATTAR on 8 July 2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 03.12.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.55664/2017 (GM-R/C) [impugned order]. Respondent No.1 had filed the said writ petition impugning a Government Order dated 15.11.2017, whereby the appellant (who was arrayed as respondent No.6 in the writ petition) was designated to temporarily discharge the functions of the regular Archak of Shree Cheluvanarayana Temple at Melukote during the ashoucha period or whenever the regular Archak (respondent No.1) was unable to perform the temple services.

2. It is the case of respondent No.1 that the Government could not appoint an alternate Archak during the period of his absence, as he was required to nominate a substitute Archak in his place during the period of his temporary absence. The learned Single Judge reasoned that the temple in question (Shree Cheluvanarayana Temple at Melukote) has a large following all

HC-KAR

over the country and respondent No.1 had been performing the duties as a hereditary Archak of the temple since three decades. The Court held that the provisions of the Karnataka Hindu Religious and Endowments Act, 1997 [the Act] and the Rules promulgated thereunder, empowers the Archak to make alternate arrangements for the archakship during the ashoucha period or when the archak is temporarily absent, subject to obtaining the concurrence of the Executive Officer. In the aforesaid context, the Court held that the Government Order appointing the appellant as an alternate Archak is unsustainable and therefore, set aside the same.

3. The appellant filed an appeal against the impugned order being W.A. No.256/2022. However, the said appeal was withdrawn with liberty to file a review petition.

4. Pursuant thereto, the appellant filed a review petition, [RP No.722/2022] inter aila, contending that the judgment under the review had proceeded on an erroneous premise that respondent No.1 was a hereditary Archak. It was further contended that the Government Order dated 15.11.2017 had been issued in exercise of powers conferred under Section 77 of the Act, which empowers

HC-KAR

the State Government to by notification, make such provisions, not inconsistent with the purposes of the Act, as may appear to it to be necessary or expedient for removing difficulties.

5. The learned Single Judge rejected the contention and held that Section 77 (2) of the Act has no application to a situation where an Archak goes on leave or is unable to discharge his duties during the period of ashoucha. The Court observed that such a contingency is governed by Sub-rule (3) of Rule 15 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Rules, 2002 [Rules, 2002].

6. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 15 of the Rules, 2002 expressly provides for a situation, where an Archak proceeds on leave. It requires that the said Archak or temple servant to make their own arrangement to nominate a substitute in his place, subject to the approval of the Executive Officer or Chairman of the Committee or the Management, as the case may be.

7. Thus, the Court held that the Government could not, by invoking Section 77 of the Act, designate an alternate Archak in derogation of the procedure prescribed under Rule 15(3) of the

HC-KAR

Rules, 2002 and there was no error apparent on the face of record, warranting review of the order dated 03.12.2021.

8. We find no infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge either in the writ petition or in the review petition.

9. The Government Order dated 15.11.2017, which was impugned in the writ petition (W.P. No.55664/2017), was not sustainable as it was contrary to the procedure contemplated under Rule 15 (3) of the Rules, 2002.

10. The issue whether respondent No.1 is a hereditary Archak is not relevant, as the impugned order rests on the interpretation of the statutory scheme governing temporary arrangements during the absence of an Archak as prescribed under Rule 15 (3) of the Rules, 2002.

11. We also note that the present appeal has been preferred after an inordinate and unexplained delay. No sufficient cause has been shown to condone the delay. The appeal is therefore dismissed both on the ground of delay and merits.

HC-KAR

12. The pending interlocutory application also stands disposed of.

Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24