KrishnappA. M and ors Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors

[s.n.satyanarayana j.] these writ petitions are filed under articles 226 & 227 of the constitution of india praying to quash the notification issued by respondent no.2 produced at annexure - c and grant an interim order to stay the operation and execution of annexure - c dated 3.8.09 issued by the respondent no.2 in sum. d.v.s.c.r 15/09-10 electing the new executive committee in respect of the respondent no.5 temple.order1. the petitioners herein are impugning the notification dated 03.08.2009 vide annexure - c, wherein the second respondent herein has appointed a committee of nine members as managing committee to lakshmi ranganatha swamy temple, urukere, kasaba hobli, tumkur taluk who are respondent nos. 6 to 13 in this writ petition.2. the said appointment is made by the third respondent by invoking the provisions of section 25 of the karnataka hindu religious and charitable endowment act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 'act' for short).3. admittedly, the said act is under challenge in a proceeding pending before the apex court, wherein by virtue of an interim order passed by the apex court in civil application no.5924/2008 passed on 31.07.2009 section 25 of the act is not in force.4. the counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that since the impugned order appointing respondent nos.6 to 14 as members of the managing committee of the aforesaid temple is passed vide annexure - c date 03.08.2009 passed by the second respondent when section 25 of the act was not in force pursuant to the order passed by the apex court on 31.07.2009. therefore, the same is not a valid order. consequently, the appointment of committee consisting of respondents 6 to 13 herein does not survive.5. after hearing the counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned government pleader appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 4. this court has come to the conclusion that the impugned order dated 03.08.2009 is contrary to the interim order passed by the apex court in the aforesaid civil application. therefore, the same is required to be quashed. while doing so, this court reserves liberty to respondent nos. 1 to 4 to invoke the provisions of section 29 of the act to appoint an administrator to manage the affairs of the aforesaid temple.6. on these observations, the writ petition is disposed.