CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2000) 01 KAR CK 0051

B.V. Ramanujam and Others vs State of Karnataka and Others

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 25 January 2000 · Citation: AIR 2000 Kar 255 : (2000) ILR (Kar) 1657 : (2000) 4 KarLJ 291 : (2000) 2 KCCR 1213

HON’BLE JUDGES
Chandrashekaraiah, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 37235 of 1993

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 376 words
1.

The petitioners in this writ petition have challenged the validity of the rules under which certain amendments were introduced to the 1952 Rules.

2.

Sri B.M. Krishna Bhat, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the amended rules which are impugned in this writ petition are invalid and liable to be struck down on the ground that the said rules are inconsistent with the provisions of the Act insofar as it relates to the constitution of the Committee of Management. Section 41 of the Act provides that the Government may frame rules not inconsistent with the regulations. Section 7 of the Karnataka Religious and Charitable Institutions Act, 1927 reads as follows:

"In addition to or in lieu of Dharmadarasis and Nazarins appointed u/s 6, the Government may subject to such rules as they may frame in this behalf appoint a committee of persons chosen by election or otherwise, for the management of one or more Muzrai Institutions".

Under the amended rules, Rule 2 has been amended to read "not more than eighteen" in place of the figure "16". Rule 3 of the old Rules are substituted by new rules providing for composition of Committee and conduct of business. After going through the composition of Committee as provided under the impugned rules, I am satisfied that the Committee provides representation to all sections of the people keeping in view the best administration of the temple. Sri B.M. Krishna Bhat, learned Counsel for the petitioner is not able to show how the said composition is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. Further, if no provision is made for certain persons to include their names in the Committee of Management under the amended rules, the said persons cannot claim as a matter of right for representation in the Committee. Therefore, I find the impugned rules are in no way said to be invalid for any reason.

3.

The learned Counsel for the petitioners is also not able to show on what ground the impugned rules are to be declared as invalid or unconstitutional. In the result, I pass the following order:

4.

Writ petition is rejected. Since the writ petition is disposed of on merits, no order is necessary on I.A. filed in this writ petition.