B. Kalasetty vs Commissioner for Religious and Charitable Endowments and Others

Chandrakantharaj Urs, J.-This petition coming up for orders, by consent of the learned counsel for the parties, is taken up for final hearing and disposed of by the following order.

The short question which falls for determination is whether the impugned order was issued in accordance with law. The facts which are required to be narrated are as follows:

The petitioner was appointed as a Member of the Committee of Dharmadharshies of Srikanteswaraswamy Temple, Nanjangud, by an order dated 16-6-1987. His name appears at SI. No. 11 in the order. However, the Commissioner for Religious and Charitable Institutions in Karnataka having jurisdiction called upon the petition by his notice dated 29-6-1889 to show cause why he should not be removed from the office of Dharmadharshy on account of his having been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment and payment of fine. The appeal against the order of conviction was also dismissed with slight modification in regard to the quantum of fine. In reply to the said notice, he gave an evasive reply calling for more particulars and in the light of that reply an order came to be passed on 1-9-1989 by the Commissioner for Endowments in Karnataka, Bangalore, as at Annexure B. It is the correctness of that order is challenged in this petition.

The appointment and removal of Dharmadharshies is controlled by the Mysore Religious & Charitable Institutions Regulations 1927 or the Karnataka Religious and Charitable Institutions Act, 1927. Section 41 of the Act enables the Government to frame rules not inconsistent with the Act. Pursuant thereto, rules have been framed known as the Rules under the Karnataka Religious and Charitable Institutions Regulations. Rule 6 of the Rules provides for the mode of appointment, powers and duties of Dharmadarsis. Rule 6(16) of the Rules provides that any dharmadarsi who fails to attend more than three consecutive meetings of the committee of Dharmadarshis or is absent from station for more than six months is liable to be removed from the office. Sub-rule (17) of Rule 6 of the Rules provides that the Deputy Commissioner may, for sufficient reasons recommend to the Muzrai Commissioner the removal of any Dharmadarsi of any major institution from the office. In the case of scheduled institutions the recommendation should be sent up to the Government for orders.

Sri Srikanteswara swamy Temple at Nanjangud is a scheduled institution and it is not in dispute. Therefore, in compliance with the requirement of Sub-Rule (17) of Rule 6 of the Rules, the order of removal should be made by the Government and not by the Commissioner for Religious and Charitable Institutions.

In the instant case the Commissioner has passed the order and not the Government. The learned Government Pleader has not placed any material to show that the power has been delegated to the Commissioner. In the circumstances, the impugned order at Annexure D is clearly without the authority of law and is liable to be quashed.

The impugned order is accordingly quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the Deputy Commissioner to forward the recommendation to the Government now and the Government may pass such orders as it thinks fit in the light of the explanation offered by the petitioner to the show cause notice issued. No fresh show cause notice need be issued.

Writ petition is allowed. Rule issued is made absolute.

Order accordingly.

Writ petition allowed.