Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev Gokarna Vs the Divisional Commissioner Belgaum Division Belgaum and ors - Citation 371660 - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev Gokarna Vs the Divisional Commissioner Belgaum Division Belgaum and ors - Citation 371660 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '371660',
			'acts' => 'Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 - Sections 76; Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 - Rule 3 and 3(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 330 of 1999',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna Vs. the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 38, Rule 5: [A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J] Attachment before judgment  Suit for specific performance of agreement  I.As for grant of interim injunctions and attachment before judgment  Held,  Unless the plaintiff establishes that the defendant is attempting to remove or dispose of his assets, with an intention to defeat the decree that may be passed against him, the application under Order 38, Rule 5 cannot be allowed. On facts, held, Trial Court has not recorded in its order that the first defendant is likely to dispose of the schedule property with the intention of defeating the decree that may be passed in the suit. The trial court has ignored the mandatory requirements of Order 38, Rule 5 while passing the impugned order. Hence, plaintiff has not made out any case to exercise power/jurisdiction under Order 38, Rule 5 by the Trial Court. Impugned order was quashed.  -  5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'T.A. Karumbaiah, Adv. for ;T.S. Ramachandra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Srinivasa Gowda and ;S.R. Hudlamane, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-09-06',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The validity and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, is sought to be challenged in this appeal preferred by the appellant-Temple.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Every year during Mahashivarathri Festival, the Temple conducts a jatra which is attended by a large number of persons. During the year 1988 the jatra was scheduled to take place from 11-2-1988 to 19-2-1988. As the gathering in the jatra used to be very large, it necessitated on the part of respondent 3, Mandal Panchayat, to make special arrangements for public health, safety or convenience. The third respondent having tentatively fixed a certain sum held a meeting with the Managing Trustee of the Temple and in the said meeting the probable expenditure likely to be incurred for making arrangements during the jatra was determined as Rs. 37,700/-. The third respondent, thereafter, acting under Section 76 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short) issued notice to the Temple to pay a sum of Rs. 37,700/-. The Temple preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum challenging the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed. In the petition filed before the learned Single Judge the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner were challenged on the ground that the order was notmade in accordance with the Rules. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as without merit. Hence, the present appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. We have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner are challenged on the ground that they did not conform with the Rules framed under the Act. The appellant does not dispute the fact that the Deputy Commissioner has the authority under the Act to make an assessment of the probable expenditure that the Mandal Panchayat may have to incur for holding of the jatra. Rule 3 of the Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 stipulates the manner in which the assessment that precedes the issue of notice under Section 76 of the Act, has to be made. The said rule reads:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Manner of determination of contribution.--(1) The Deputy Commissioner may, before determining the contributions under Section 76, call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered, in the places referred to in Sub-section (1) of the said section.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Deputy Commissioner may, after consulting the trustee or other person having control over such place and having regard to the report called for under Sub-rule (1), determine the quantum of recurring or non-recurring contribution required to be made to the funds of the Mandal Panchayat under Section 76'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sub-rule (1) mandates the calling of report by the Deputy Commissioner from the Mandal Panchayat concerned before determining the contribution recoverable under Section 76 of the Act. Under Sub-rule (2) the Deputy Commissioner has to consult the trustee or any other person having control over such place before making the determination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law. Sub-rule (1) requires the Deputy Commissioner to, 'call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered.....'. The expenditure had to be necessarily incurred by the Mandal Panchayat much prior to the actual event as the arrangements to be made are more in the nature of preventive measures to be taken for safeguarding public health, safety etc. The arrangements to be made would be more in the nature of preventing communicable diseases, providing for the security of the people thronging the jatra, making arrangement for the movement of the public etc. Therefore, the contention that the Mandal Panchayat could have had an idea of the probable expenditure only after the completion of the jatra is without substance.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is also not the case of the appellant that no such report as envisaged under Sub-rule (1) was called for by the Deputy Commissioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The Deputy Commissioner having had consultations under sub-rule (2) of the Rules with the Managing Trustee had, in fact, scaled down the estimation made and fixed the contribution payable by the Temple at Rs. 37,700/-. Such determination being quite in accordance with the Rules, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In our considered opinion, there is no ground much less a valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In the result, for the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'ILR2002KAR2296; 2002(2)KarLJ173',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '371660',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev Gokarna Vs the Divisional Commissioner Belgaum Division Belgaum and ors - Citation 371660 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '371660',
		'acts' => 'Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 - Sections 76; Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 - Rule 3 and 3(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 330 of 1999',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna Vs. the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 38, Rule 5: [A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J] Attachment before judgment  Suit for specific performance of agreement  I.As for grant of interim injunctions and attachment before judgment  Held,  Unless the plaintiff establishes that the defendant is attempting to remove or dispose of his assets, with an intention to defeat the decree that may be passed against him, the application under Order 38, Rule 5 cannot be allowed. On facts, held, Trial Court has not recorded in its order that the first defendant is likely to dispose of the schedule property with the intention of defeating the decree that may be passed in the suit. The trial court has ignored the mandatory requirements of Order 38, Rule 5 while passing the impugned order. Hence, plaintiff has not made out any case to exercise power/jurisdiction under Order 38, Rule 5 by the Trial Court. Impugned order was quashed.  -  5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'T.A. Karumbaiah, Adv. for ;T.S. Ramachandra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Srinivasa Gowda and ;S.R. Hudlamane, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-09-06',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.</p><p>1. The validity and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, is sought to be challenged in this appeal preferred by the appellant-Temple.</p><p>2. Every year during Mahashivarathri Festival, the Temple conducts a jatra which is attended by a large number of persons. During the year 1988 the jatra was scheduled to take place from 11-2-1988 to 19-2-1988. As the gathering in the jatra used to be very large, it necessitated on the part of respondent 3, Mandal Panchayat, to make special arrangements for public health, safety or convenience. The third respondent having tentatively fixed a certain sum held a meeting with the Managing Trustee of the Temple and in the said meeting the probable expenditure likely to be incurred for making arrangements during the jatra was determined as Rs. 37,700/-. The third respondent, thereafter, acting under Section 76 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short) issued notice to the Temple to pay a sum of Rs. 37,700/-. The Temple preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum challenging the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed. In the petition filed before the learned Single Judge the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner were challenged on the ground that the order was notmade in accordance with the Rules. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as without merit. Hence, the present appeal.</p><p>3. We have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.</p><p>4. The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner are challenged on the ground that they did not conform with the Rules framed under the Act. The appellant does not dispute the fact that the Deputy Commissioner has the authority under the Act to make an assessment of the probable expenditure that the Mandal Panchayat may have to incur for holding of the jatra. Rule 3 of the Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 stipulates the manner in which the assessment that precedes the issue of notice under Section 76 of the Act, has to be made. The said rule reads:</p><p>'Manner of determination of contribution.--(1) The Deputy Commissioner may, before determining the contributions under Section 76, call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered, in the places referred to in Sub-section (1) of the said section.</p><p>(2) The Deputy Commissioner may, after consulting the trustee or other person having control over such place and having regard to the report called for under Sub-rule (1), determine the quantum of recurring or non-recurring contribution required to be made to the funds of the Mandal Panchayat under Section 76'.</p><p>Sub-rule (1) mandates the calling of report by the Deputy Commissioner from the Mandal Panchayat concerned before determining the contribution recoverable under Section 76 of the Act. Under Sub-rule (2) the Deputy Commissioner has to consult the trustee or any other person having control over such place before making the determination.</p><p>5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law. Sub-rule (1) requires the Deputy Commissioner to, 'call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered.....'. The expenditure had to be necessarily incurred by the Mandal Panchayat much prior to the actual event as the arrangements to be made are more in the nature of preventive measures to be taken for safeguarding public health, safety etc. The arrangements to be made would be more in the nature of preventing communicable diseases, providing for the security of the people thronging the jatra, making arrangement for the movement of the public etc. Therefore, the contention that the Mandal Panchayat could have had an idea of the probable expenditure only after the completion of the jatra is without substance.</p><p>It is also not the case of the appellant that no such report as envisaged under Sub-rule (1) was called for by the Deputy Commissioner.</p><p>6. The Deputy Commissioner having had consultations under sub-rule (2) of the Rules with the Managing Trustee had, in fact, scaled down the estimation made and fixed the contribution payable by the Temple at Rs. 37,700/-. Such determination being quite in accordance with the Rules, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition.</p><p>7. In our considered opinion, there is no ground much less a valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.</p><p>8. In the result, for the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'ILR2002KAR2296; 2002(2)KarLJ173',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '371660',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/371660/shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev Gokarna Vs the Divisional Commissioner Belgaum Division Belgaum and ors - Citation 371660 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '371660',
			'acts' => 'Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 - Sections 76; Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 - Rule 3 and 3(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 330 of 1999',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna Vs. the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 38, Rule 5: [A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J] Attachment before judgment  Suit for specific performance of agreement  I.As for grant of interim injunctions and attachment before judgment  Held,  Unless the plaintiff establishes that the defendant is attempting to remove or dispose of his assets, with an intention to defeat the decree that may be passed against him, the application under Order 38, Rule 5 cannot be allowed. On facts, held, Trial Court has not recorded in its order that the first defendant is likely to dispose of the schedule property with the intention of defeating the decree that may be passed in the suit. The trial court has ignored the mandatory requirements of Order 38, Rule 5 while passing the impugned order. Hence, plaintiff has not made out any case to exercise power/jurisdiction under Order 38, Rule 5 by the Trial Court. Impugned order was quashed.  -  5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'T.A. Karumbaiah, Adv. for ;T.S. Ramachandra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Srinivasa Gowda and ;S.R. Hudlamane, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-09-06',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The validity and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, is sought to be challenged in this appeal preferred by the appellant-Temple.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Every year during Mahashivarathri Festival, the Temple conducts a jatra which is attended by a large number of persons. During the year 1988 the jatra was scheduled to take place from 11-2-1988 to 19-2-1988. As the gathering in the jatra used to be very large, it necessitated on the part of respondent 3, Mandal Panchayat, to make special arrangements for public health, safety or convenience. The third respondent having tentatively fixed a certain sum held a meeting with the Managing Trustee of the Temple and in the said meeting the probable expenditure likely to be incurred for making arrangements during the jatra was determined as Rs. 37,700/-. The third respondent, thereafter, acting under Section 76 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short) issued notice to the Temple to pay a sum of Rs. 37,700/-. The Temple preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum challenging the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed. In the petition filed before the learned Single Judge the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner were challenged on the ground that the order was notmade in accordance with the Rules. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as without merit. Hence, the present appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. We have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner are challenged on the ground that they did not conform with the Rules framed under the Act. The appellant does not dispute the fact that the Deputy Commissioner has the authority under the Act to make an assessment of the probable expenditure that the Mandal Panchayat may have to incur for holding of the jatra. Rule 3 of the Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 stipulates the manner in which the assessment that precedes the issue of notice under Section 76 of the Act, has to be made. The said rule reads:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Manner of determination of contribution.--(1) The Deputy Commissioner may, before determining the contributions under Section 76, call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered, in the places referred to in Sub-section (1) of the said section.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Deputy Commissioner may, after consulting the trustee or other person having control over such place and having regard to the report called for under Sub-rule (1), determine the quantum of recurring or non-recurring contribution required to be made to the funds of the Mandal Panchayat under Section 76'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sub-rule (1) mandates the calling of report by the Deputy Commissioner from the Mandal Panchayat concerned before determining the contribution recoverable under Section 76 of the Act. Under Sub-rule (2) the Deputy Commissioner has to consult the trustee or any other person having control over such place before making the determination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law. Sub-rule (1) requires the Deputy Commissioner to, 'call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered.....'. The expenditure had to be necessarily incurred by the Mandal Panchayat much prior to the actual event as the arrangements to be made are more in the nature of preventive measures to be taken for safeguarding public health, safety etc. The arrangements to be made would be more in the nature of preventing communicable diseases, providing for the security of the people thronging the jatra, making arrangement for the movement of the public etc. Therefore, the contention that the Mandal Panchayat could have had an idea of the probable expenditure only after the completion of the jatra is without substance.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is also not the case of the appellant that no such report as envisaged under Sub-rule (1) was called for by the Deputy Commissioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The Deputy Commissioner having had consultations under sub-rule (2) of the Rules with the Managing Trustee had, in fact, scaled down the estimation made and fixed the contribution payable by the Temple at Rs. 37,700/-. Such determination being quite in accordance with the Rules, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In our considered opinion, there is no ground much less a valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In the result, for the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'ILR2002KAR2296; 2002(2)KarLJ173',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '371660',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev Gokarna Vs the Divisional Commissioner Belgaum Division Belgaum and ors - Citation 371660 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '371660',
		'acts' => 'Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 - Sections 76; Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 - Rule 3 and 3(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 330 of 1999',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna Vs. the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 38, Rule 5: [A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J] Attachment before judgment  Suit for specific performance of agreement  I.As for grant of interim injunctions and attachment before judgment  Held,  Unless the plaintiff establishes that the defendant is attempting to remove or dispose of his assets, with an intention to defeat the decree that may be passed against him, the application under Order 38, Rule 5 cannot be allowed. On facts, held, Trial Court has not recorded in its order that the first defendant is likely to dispose of the schedule property with the intention of defeating the decree that may be passed in the suit. The trial court has ignored the mandatory requirements of Order 38, Rule 5 while passing the impugned order. Hence, plaintiff has not made out any case to exercise power/jurisdiction under Order 38, Rule 5 by the Trial Court. Impugned order was quashed.  -  5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'T.A. Karumbaiah, Adv. for ;T.S. Ramachandra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Srinivasa Gowda and ;S.R. Hudlamane, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-09-06',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.</p><p>1. The validity and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, is sought to be challenged in this appeal preferred by the appellant-Temple.</p><p>2. Every year during Mahashivarathri Festival, the Temple conducts a jatra which is attended by a large number of persons. During the year 1988 the jatra was scheduled to take place from 11-2-1988 to 19-2-1988. As the gathering in the jatra used to be very large, it necessitated on the part of respondent 3, Mandal Panchayat, to make special arrangements for public health, safety or convenience. The third respondent having tentatively fixed a certain sum held a meeting with the Managing Trustee of the Temple and in the said meeting the probable expenditure likely to be incurred for making arrangements during the jatra was determined as Rs. 37,700/-. The third respondent, thereafter, acting under Section 76 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short) issued notice to the Temple to pay a sum of Rs. 37,700/-. The Temple preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum challenging the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed. In the petition filed before the learned Single Judge the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner were challenged on the ground that the order was notmade in accordance with the Rules. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as without merit. Hence, the present appeal.</p><p>3. We have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.</p><p>4. The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner are challenged on the ground that they did not conform with the Rules framed under the Act. The appellant does not dispute the fact that the Deputy Commissioner has the authority under the Act to make an assessment of the probable expenditure that the Mandal Panchayat may have to incur for holding of the jatra. Rule 3 of the Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 stipulates the manner in which the assessment that precedes the issue of notice under Section 76 of the Act, has to be made. The said rule reads:</p><p>'Manner of determination of contribution.--(1) The Deputy Commissioner may, before determining the contributions under Section 76, call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered, in the places referred to in Sub-section (1) of the said section.</p><p>(2) The Deputy Commissioner may, after consulting the trustee or other person having control over such place and having regard to the report called for under Sub-rule (1), determine the quantum of recurring or non-recurring contribution required to be made to the funds of the Mandal Panchayat under Section 76'.</p><p>Sub-rule (1) mandates the calling of report by the Deputy Commissioner from the Mandal Panchayat concerned before determining the contribution recoverable under Section 76 of the Act. Under Sub-rule (2) the Deputy Commissioner has to consult the trustee or any other person having control over such place before making the determination.</p><p>5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law. Sub-rule (1) requires the Deputy Commissioner to, 'call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered.....'. The expenditure had to be necessarily incurred by the Mandal Panchayat much prior to the actual event as the arrangements to be made are more in the nature of preventive measures to be taken for safeguarding public health, safety etc. The arrangements to be made would be more in the nature of preventing communicable diseases, providing for the security of the people thronging the jatra, making arrangement for the movement of the public etc. Therefore, the contention that the Mandal Panchayat could have had an idea of the probable expenditure only after the completion of the jatra is without substance.</p><p>It is also not the case of the appellant that no such report as envisaged under Sub-rule (1) was called for by the Deputy Commissioner.</p><p>6. The Deputy Commissioner having had consultations under sub-rule (2) of the Rules with the Managing Trustee had, in fact, scaled down the estimation made and fixed the contribution payable by the Temple at Rs. 37,700/-. Such determination being quite in accordance with the Rules, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition.</p><p>7. In our considered opinion, there is no ground much less a valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.</p><p>8. In the result, for the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'ILR2002KAR2296; 2002(2)KarLJ173',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '371660',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/371660/shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

- code of civil procedure, 1908. order 38, rule 5: [a.n. venugopala gowda, j] attachment before judgment suit for specific performance of agreement i.as for grant of interim injunctions and attachment before judgment held, unless the plaintiff establishes that the defendant is attempting to remove or dispose of his assets, with an intention to defeat the decree that may be passed against him, the application under order 38, rule 5 cannot be allowed. on facts, held, trial court has not recorded in its order that the first defendant is likely to dispose of the schedule property with the intention of defeating the decree that may be passed in the suit. the trial court has ignored the mandatory requirements of order 38, rule 5 while passing the impugned order. hence, plaintiff has not.....

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev Gokarna Vs the Divisional Commissioner Belgaum Division Belgaum and ors - Citation 371660 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '371660',
			'acts' => 'Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 - Sections 76; Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 - Rule 3 and 3(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 330 of 1999',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna Vs. the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 38, Rule 5: [A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J] Attachment before judgment  Suit for specific performance of agreement  I.As for grant of interim injunctions and attachment before judgment  Held,  Unless the plaintiff establishes that the defendant is attempting to remove or dispose of his assets, with an intention to defeat the decree that may be passed against him, the application under Order 38, Rule 5 cannot be allowed. On facts, held, Trial Court has not recorded in its order that the first defendant is likely to dispose of the schedule property with the intention of defeating the decree that may be passed in the suit. The trial court has ignored the mandatory requirements of Order 38, Rule 5 while passing the impugned order. Hence, plaintiff has not made out any case to exercise power/jurisdiction under Order 38, Rule 5 by the Trial Court. Impugned order was quashed.  -  5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'T.A. Karumbaiah, Adv. for ;T.S. Ramachandra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Srinivasa Gowda and ;S.R. Hudlamane, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-09-06',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The validity and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, is sought to be challenged in this appeal preferred by the appellant-Temple.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Every year during Mahashivarathri Festival, the Temple conducts a jatra which is attended by a large number of persons. During the year 1988 the jatra was scheduled to take place from 11-2-1988 to 19-2-1988. As the gathering in the jatra used to be very large, it necessitated on the part of respondent 3, Mandal Panchayat, to make special arrangements for public health, safety or convenience. The third respondent having tentatively fixed a certain sum held a meeting with the Managing Trustee of the Temple and in the said meeting the probable expenditure likely to be incurred for making arrangements during the jatra was determined as Rs. 37,700/-. The third respondent, thereafter, acting under Section 76 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short) issued notice to the Temple to pay a sum of Rs. 37,700/-. The Temple preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum challenging the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed. In the petition filed before the learned Single Judge the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner were challenged on the ground that the order was notmade in accordance with the Rules. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as without merit. Hence, the present appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. We have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner are challenged on the ground that they did not conform with the Rules framed under the Act. The appellant does not dispute the fact that the Deputy Commissioner has the authority under the Act to make an assessment of the probable expenditure that the Mandal Panchayat may have to incur for holding of the jatra. Rule 3 of the Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 stipulates the manner in which the assessment that precedes the issue of notice under Section 76 of the Act, has to be made. The said rule reads:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Manner of determination of contribution.--(1) The Deputy Commissioner may, before determining the contributions under Section 76, call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered, in the places referred to in Sub-section (1) of the said section.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Deputy Commissioner may, after consulting the trustee or other person having control over such place and having regard to the report called for under Sub-rule (1), determine the quantum of recurring or non-recurring contribution required to be made to the funds of the Mandal Panchayat under Section 76'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sub-rule (1) mandates the calling of report by the Deputy Commissioner from the Mandal Panchayat concerned before determining the contribution recoverable under Section 76 of the Act. Under Sub-rule (2) the Deputy Commissioner has to consult the trustee or any other person having control over such place before making the determination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law. Sub-rule (1) requires the Deputy Commissioner to, 'call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered.....'. The expenditure had to be necessarily incurred by the Mandal Panchayat much prior to the actual event as the arrangements to be made are more in the nature of preventive measures to be taken for safeguarding public health, safety etc. The arrangements to be made would be more in the nature of preventing communicable diseases, providing for the security of the people thronging the jatra, making arrangement for the movement of the public etc. Therefore, the contention that the Mandal Panchayat could have had an idea of the probable expenditure only after the completion of the jatra is without substance.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is also not the case of the appellant that no such report as envisaged under Sub-rule (1) was called for by the Deputy Commissioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The Deputy Commissioner having had consultations under sub-rule (2) of the Rules with the Managing Trustee had, in fact, scaled down the estimation made and fixed the contribution payable by the Temple at Rs. 37,700/-. Such determination being quite in accordance with the Rules, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In our considered opinion, there is no ground much less a valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In the result, for the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'ILR2002KAR2296; 2002(2)KarLJ173',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '371660',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev Gokarna Vs the Divisional Commissioner Belgaum Division Belgaum and ors - Citation 371660 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '371660',
		'acts' => 'Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 - Sections 76; Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 - Rule 3 and 3(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 330 of 1999',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna Vs. the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 38, Rule 5: [A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J] Attachment before judgment  Suit for specific performance of agreement  I.As for grant of interim injunctions and attachment before judgment  Held,  Unless the plaintiff establishes that the defendant is attempting to remove or dispose of his assets, with an intention to defeat the decree that may be passed against him, the application under Order 38, Rule 5 cannot be allowed. On facts, held, Trial Court has not recorded in its order that the first defendant is likely to dispose of the schedule property with the intention of defeating the decree that may be passed in the suit. The trial court has ignored the mandatory requirements of Order 38, Rule 5 while passing the impugned order. Hence, plaintiff has not made out any case to exercise power/jurisdiction under Order 38, Rule 5 by the Trial Court. Impugned order was quashed.  -  5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'T.A. Karumbaiah, Adv. for ;T.S. Ramachandra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Srinivasa Gowda and ;S.R. Hudlamane, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-09-06',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.</p><p>1. The validity and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, is sought to be challenged in this appeal preferred by the appellant-Temple.</p><p>2. Every year during Mahashivarathri Festival, the Temple conducts a jatra which is attended by a large number of persons. During the year 1988 the jatra was scheduled to take place from 11-2-1988 to 19-2-1988. As the gathering in the jatra used to be very large, it necessitated on the part of respondent 3, Mandal Panchayat, to make special arrangements for public health, safety or convenience. The third respondent having tentatively fixed a certain sum held a meeting with the Managing Trustee of the Temple and in the said meeting the probable expenditure likely to be incurred for making arrangements during the jatra was determined as Rs. 37,700/-. The third respondent, thereafter, acting under Section 76 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short) issued notice to the Temple to pay a sum of Rs. 37,700/-. The Temple preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum challenging the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed. In the petition filed before the learned Single Judge the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner were challenged on the ground that the order was notmade in accordance with the Rules. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as without merit. Hence, the present appeal.</p><p>3. We have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.</p><p>4. The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner are challenged on the ground that they did not conform with the Rules framed under the Act. The appellant does not dispute the fact that the Deputy Commissioner has the authority under the Act to make an assessment of the probable expenditure that the Mandal Panchayat may have to incur for holding of the jatra. Rule 3 of the Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 stipulates the manner in which the assessment that precedes the issue of notice under Section 76 of the Act, has to be made. The said rule reads:</p><p>'Manner of determination of contribution.--(1) The Deputy Commissioner may, before determining the contributions under Section 76, call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered, in the places referred to in Sub-section (1) of the said section.</p><p>(2) The Deputy Commissioner may, after consulting the trustee or other person having control over such place and having regard to the report called for under Sub-rule (1), determine the quantum of recurring or non-recurring contribution required to be made to the funds of the Mandal Panchayat under Section 76'.</p><p>Sub-rule (1) mandates the calling of report by the Deputy Commissioner from the Mandal Panchayat concerned before determining the contribution recoverable under Section 76 of the Act. Under Sub-rule (2) the Deputy Commissioner has to consult the trustee or any other person having control over such place before making the determination.</p><p>5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law. Sub-rule (1) requires the Deputy Commissioner to, 'call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered.....'. The expenditure had to be necessarily incurred by the Mandal Panchayat much prior to the actual event as the arrangements to be made are more in the nature of preventive measures to be taken for safeguarding public health, safety etc. The arrangements to be made would be more in the nature of preventing communicable diseases, providing for the security of the people thronging the jatra, making arrangement for the movement of the public etc. Therefore, the contention that the Mandal Panchayat could have had an idea of the probable expenditure only after the completion of the jatra is without substance.</p><p>It is also not the case of the appellant that no such report as envisaged under Sub-rule (1) was called for by the Deputy Commissioner.</p><p>6. The Deputy Commissioner having had consultations under sub-rule (2) of the Rules with the Managing Trustee had, in fact, scaled down the estimation made and fixed the contribution payable by the Temple at Rs. 37,700/-. Such determination being quite in accordance with the Rules, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition.</p><p>7. In our considered opinion, there is no ground much less a valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.</p><p>8. In the result, for the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'ILR2002KAR2296; 2002(2)KarLJ173',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '371660',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/371660/shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev Gokarna Vs the Divisional Commissioner Belgaum Division Belgaum and ors - Citation 371660 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '371660',
			'acts' => 'Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 - Sections 76; Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 - Rule 3 and 3(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 330 of 1999',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna Vs. the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 38, Rule 5: [A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J] Attachment before judgment  Suit for specific performance of agreement  I.As for grant of interim injunctions and attachment before judgment  Held,  Unless the plaintiff establishes that the defendant is attempting to remove or dispose of his assets, with an intention to defeat the decree that may be passed against him, the application under Order 38, Rule 5 cannot be allowed. On facts, held, Trial Court has not recorded in its order that the first defendant is likely to dispose of the schedule property with the intention of defeating the decree that may be passed in the suit. The trial court has ignored the mandatory requirements of Order 38, Rule 5 while passing the impugned order. Hence, plaintiff has not made out any case to exercise power/jurisdiction under Order 38, Rule 5 by the Trial Court. Impugned order was quashed.  -  5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'T.A. Karumbaiah, Adv. for ;T.S. Ramachandra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Srinivasa Gowda and ;S.R. Hudlamane, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-09-06',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The validity and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, is sought to be challenged in this appeal preferred by the appellant-Temple.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Every year during Mahashivarathri Festival, the Temple conducts a jatra which is attended by a large number of persons. During the year 1988 the jatra was scheduled to take place from 11-2-1988 to 19-2-1988. As the gathering in the jatra used to be very large, it necessitated on the part of respondent 3, Mandal Panchayat, to make special arrangements for public health, safety or convenience. The third respondent having tentatively fixed a certain sum held a meeting with the Managing Trustee of the Temple and in the said meeting the probable expenditure likely to be incurred for making arrangements during the jatra was determined as Rs. 37,700/-. The third respondent, thereafter, acting under Section 76 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short) issued notice to the Temple to pay a sum of Rs. 37,700/-. The Temple preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum challenging the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed. In the petition filed before the learned Single Judge the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner were challenged on the ground that the order was notmade in accordance with the Rules. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as without merit. Hence, the present appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. We have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner are challenged on the ground that they did not conform with the Rules framed under the Act. The appellant does not dispute the fact that the Deputy Commissioner has the authority under the Act to make an assessment of the probable expenditure that the Mandal Panchayat may have to incur for holding of the jatra. Rule 3 of the Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 stipulates the manner in which the assessment that precedes the issue of notice under Section 76 of the Act, has to be made. The said rule reads:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Manner of determination of contribution.--(1) The Deputy Commissioner may, before determining the contributions under Section 76, call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered, in the places referred to in Sub-section (1) of the said section.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Deputy Commissioner may, after consulting the trustee or other person having control over such place and having regard to the report called for under Sub-rule (1), determine the quantum of recurring or non-recurring contribution required to be made to the funds of the Mandal Panchayat under Section 76'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sub-rule (1) mandates the calling of report by the Deputy Commissioner from the Mandal Panchayat concerned before determining the contribution recoverable under Section 76 of the Act. Under Sub-rule (2) the Deputy Commissioner has to consult the trustee or any other person having control over such place before making the determination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law. Sub-rule (1) requires the Deputy Commissioner to, 'call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered.....'. The expenditure had to be necessarily incurred by the Mandal Panchayat much prior to the actual event as the arrangements to be made are more in the nature of preventive measures to be taken for safeguarding public health, safety etc. The arrangements to be made would be more in the nature of preventing communicable diseases, providing for the security of the people thronging the jatra, making arrangement for the movement of the public etc. Therefore, the contention that the Mandal Panchayat could have had an idea of the probable expenditure only after the completion of the jatra is without substance.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is also not the case of the appellant that no such report as envisaged under Sub-rule (1) was called for by the Deputy Commissioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The Deputy Commissioner having had consultations under sub-rule (2) of the Rules with the Managing Trustee had, in fact, scaled down the estimation made and fixed the contribution payable by the Temple at Rs. 37,700/-. Such determination being quite in accordance with the Rules, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In our considered opinion, there is no ground much less a valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In the result, for the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'ILR2002KAR2296; 2002(2)KarLJ173',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '371660',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev Gokarna Vs the Divisional Commissioner Belgaum Division Belgaum and ors - Citation 371660 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '371660',
		'acts' => 'Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 - Sections 76; Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 - Rule 3 and 3(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 330 of 1999',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna Vs. the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 38, Rule 5: [A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J] Attachment before judgment  Suit for specific performance of agreement  I.As for grant of interim injunctions and attachment before judgment  Held,  Unless the plaintiff establishes that the defendant is attempting to remove or dispose of his assets, with an intention to defeat the decree that may be passed against him, the application under Order 38, Rule 5 cannot be allowed. On facts, held, Trial Court has not recorded in its order that the first defendant is likely to dispose of the schedule property with the intention of defeating the decree that may be passed in the suit. The trial court has ignored the mandatory requirements of Order 38, Rule 5 while passing the impugned order. Hence, plaintiff has not made out any case to exercise power/jurisdiction under Order 38, Rule 5 by the Trial Court. Impugned order was quashed.  -  5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'T.A. Karumbaiah, Adv. for ;T.S. Ramachandra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Srinivasa Gowda and ;S.R. Hudlamane, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-09-06',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.</p><p>1. The validity and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, is sought to be challenged in this appeal preferred by the appellant-Temple.</p><p>2. Every year during Mahashivarathri Festival, the Temple conducts a jatra which is attended by a large number of persons. During the year 1988 the jatra was scheduled to take place from 11-2-1988 to 19-2-1988. As the gathering in the jatra used to be very large, it necessitated on the part of respondent 3, Mandal Panchayat, to make special arrangements for public health, safety or convenience. The third respondent having tentatively fixed a certain sum held a meeting with the Managing Trustee of the Temple and in the said meeting the probable expenditure likely to be incurred for making arrangements during the jatra was determined as Rs. 37,700/-. The third respondent, thereafter, acting under Section 76 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short) issued notice to the Temple to pay a sum of Rs. 37,700/-. The Temple preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum challenging the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed. In the petition filed before the learned Single Judge the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner were challenged on the ground that the order was notmade in accordance with the Rules. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as without merit. Hence, the present appeal.</p><p>3. We have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.</p><p>4. The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner are challenged on the ground that they did not conform with the Rules framed under the Act. The appellant does not dispute the fact that the Deputy Commissioner has the authority under the Act to make an assessment of the probable expenditure that the Mandal Panchayat may have to incur for holding of the jatra. Rule 3 of the Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 stipulates the manner in which the assessment that precedes the issue of notice under Section 76 of the Act, has to be made. The said rule reads:</p><p>'Manner of determination of contribution.--(1) The Deputy Commissioner may, before determining the contributions under Section 76, call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered, in the places referred to in Sub-section (1) of the said section.</p><p>(2) The Deputy Commissioner may, after consulting the trustee or other person having control over such place and having regard to the report called for under Sub-rule (1), determine the quantum of recurring or non-recurring contribution required to be made to the funds of the Mandal Panchayat under Section 76'.</p><p>Sub-rule (1) mandates the calling of report by the Deputy Commissioner from the Mandal Panchayat concerned before determining the contribution recoverable under Section 76 of the Act. Under Sub-rule (2) the Deputy Commissioner has to consult the trustee or any other person having control over such place before making the determination.</p><p>5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law. Sub-rule (1) requires the Deputy Commissioner to, 'call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered.....'. The expenditure had to be necessarily incurred by the Mandal Panchayat much prior to the actual event as the arrangements to be made are more in the nature of preventive measures to be taken for safeguarding public health, safety etc. The arrangements to be made would be more in the nature of preventing communicable diseases, providing for the security of the people thronging the jatra, making arrangement for the movement of the public etc. Therefore, the contention that the Mandal Panchayat could have had an idea of the probable expenditure only after the completion of the jatra is without substance.</p><p>It is also not the case of the appellant that no such report as envisaged under Sub-rule (1) was called for by the Deputy Commissioner.</p><p>6. The Deputy Commissioner having had consultations under sub-rule (2) of the Rules with the Managing Trustee had, in fact, scaled down the estimation made and fixed the contribution payable by the Temple at Rs. 37,700/-. Such determination being quite in accordance with the Rules, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition.</p><p>7. In our considered opinion, there is no ground much less a valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.</p><p>8. In the result, for the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'ILR2002KAR2296; 2002(2)KarLJ173',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '371660',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/371660/shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

a.v. srinivasa reddy, j.1. the validity and correctness of the order passed by the learned single judge, dismissing the writ petition, is sought to be challenged in this appeal preferred by the appellant-temple.2. every year during mahashivarathri festival, the temple conducts a jatra which is attended by a large number of persons. during the year 1988 the jatra was scheduled to take place from 11-2-1988 to 19-2-1988. as the gathering in the jatra used to be very large, it necessitated on the part of respondent 3, mandal panchayat, to make special arrangements for public health, safety or convenience. the third respondent having tentatively fixed a certain sum held a meeting with the managing trustee of the temple and in the said meeting the probable expenditure likely to be incurred for.....

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev Gokarna Vs the Divisional Commissioner Belgaum Division Belgaum and ors - Citation 371660 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '371660',
			'acts' => 'Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 - Sections 76; Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 - Rule 3 and 3(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 330 of 1999',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna Vs. the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 38, Rule 5: [A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J] Attachment before judgment  Suit for specific performance of agreement  I.As for grant of interim injunctions and attachment before judgment  Held,  Unless the plaintiff establishes that the defendant is attempting to remove or dispose of his assets, with an intention to defeat the decree that may be passed against him, the application under Order 38, Rule 5 cannot be allowed. On facts, held, Trial Court has not recorded in its order that the first defendant is likely to dispose of the schedule property with the intention of defeating the decree that may be passed in the suit. The trial court has ignored the mandatory requirements of Order 38, Rule 5 while passing the impugned order. Hence, plaintiff has not made out any case to exercise power/jurisdiction under Order 38, Rule 5 by the Trial Court. Impugned order was quashed.  -  5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'T.A. Karumbaiah, Adv. for ;T.S. Ramachandra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Srinivasa Gowda and ;S.R. Hudlamane, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-09-06',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The validity and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, is sought to be challenged in this appeal preferred by the appellant-Temple.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Every year during Mahashivarathri Festival, the Temple conducts a jatra which is attended by a large number of persons. During the year 1988 the jatra was scheduled to take place from 11-2-1988 to 19-2-1988. As the gathering in the jatra used to be very large, it necessitated on the part of respondent 3, Mandal Panchayat, to make special arrangements for public health, safety or convenience. The third respondent having tentatively fixed a certain sum held a meeting with the Managing Trustee of the Temple and in the said meeting the probable expenditure likely to be incurred for making arrangements during the jatra was determined as Rs. 37,700/-. The third respondent, thereafter, acting under Section 76 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short) issued notice to the Temple to pay a sum of Rs. 37,700/-. The Temple preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum challenging the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed. In the petition filed before the learned Single Judge the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner were challenged on the ground that the order was notmade in accordance with the Rules. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as without merit. Hence, the present appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. We have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner are challenged on the ground that they did not conform with the Rules framed under the Act. The appellant does not dispute the fact that the Deputy Commissioner has the authority under the Act to make an assessment of the probable expenditure that the Mandal Panchayat may have to incur for holding of the jatra. Rule 3 of the Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 stipulates the manner in which the assessment that precedes the issue of notice under Section 76 of the Act, has to be made. The said rule reads:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Manner of determination of contribution.--(1) The Deputy Commissioner may, before determining the contributions under Section 76, call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered, in the places referred to in Sub-section (1) of the said section.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Deputy Commissioner may, after consulting the trustee or other person having control over such place and having regard to the report called for under Sub-rule (1), determine the quantum of recurring or non-recurring contribution required to be made to the funds of the Mandal Panchayat under Section 76'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sub-rule (1) mandates the calling of report by the Deputy Commissioner from the Mandal Panchayat concerned before determining the contribution recoverable under Section 76 of the Act. Under Sub-rule (2) the Deputy Commissioner has to consult the trustee or any other person having control over such place before making the determination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law. Sub-rule (1) requires the Deputy Commissioner to, 'call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered.....'. The expenditure had to be necessarily incurred by the Mandal Panchayat much prior to the actual event as the arrangements to be made are more in the nature of preventive measures to be taken for safeguarding public health, safety etc. The arrangements to be made would be more in the nature of preventing communicable diseases, providing for the security of the people thronging the jatra, making arrangement for the movement of the public etc. Therefore, the contention that the Mandal Panchayat could have had an idea of the probable expenditure only after the completion of the jatra is without substance.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is also not the case of the appellant that no such report as envisaged under Sub-rule (1) was called for by the Deputy Commissioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The Deputy Commissioner having had consultations under sub-rule (2) of the Rules with the Managing Trustee had, in fact, scaled down the estimation made and fixed the contribution payable by the Temple at Rs. 37,700/-. Such determination being quite in accordance with the Rules, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In our considered opinion, there is no ground much less a valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In the result, for the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'ILR2002KAR2296; 2002(2)KarLJ173',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '371660',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev Gokarna Vs the Divisional Commissioner Belgaum Division Belgaum and ors - Citation 371660 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '371660',
		'acts' => 'Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 - Sections 76; Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 - Rule 3 and 3(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 330 of 1999',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna Vs. the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 38, Rule 5: [A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J] Attachment before judgment  Suit for specific performance of agreement  I.As for grant of interim injunctions and attachment before judgment  Held,  Unless the plaintiff establishes that the defendant is attempting to remove or dispose of his assets, with an intention to defeat the decree that may be passed against him, the application under Order 38, Rule 5 cannot be allowed. On facts, held, Trial Court has not recorded in its order that the first defendant is likely to dispose of the schedule property with the intention of defeating the decree that may be passed in the suit. The trial court has ignored the mandatory requirements of Order 38, Rule 5 while passing the impugned order. Hence, plaintiff has not made out any case to exercise power/jurisdiction under Order 38, Rule 5 by the Trial Court. Impugned order was quashed.  -  5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'T.A. Karumbaiah, Adv. for ;T.S. Ramachandra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Srinivasa Gowda and ;S.R. Hudlamane, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-09-06',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.</p><p>1. The validity and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, is sought to be challenged in this appeal preferred by the appellant-Temple.</p><p>2. Every year during Mahashivarathri Festival, the Temple conducts a jatra which is attended by a large number of persons. During the year 1988 the jatra was scheduled to take place from 11-2-1988 to 19-2-1988. As the gathering in the jatra used to be very large, it necessitated on the part of respondent 3, Mandal Panchayat, to make special arrangements for public health, safety or convenience. The third respondent having tentatively fixed a certain sum held a meeting with the Managing Trustee of the Temple and in the said meeting the probable expenditure likely to be incurred for making arrangements during the jatra was determined as Rs. 37,700/-. The third respondent, thereafter, acting under Section 76 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short) issued notice to the Temple to pay a sum of Rs. 37,700/-. The Temple preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum challenging the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed. In the petition filed before the learned Single Judge the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner were challenged on the ground that the order was notmade in accordance with the Rules. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as without merit. Hence, the present appeal.</p><p>3. We have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.</p><p>4. The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner are challenged on the ground that they did not conform with the Rules framed under the Act. The appellant does not dispute the fact that the Deputy Commissioner has the authority under the Act to make an assessment of the probable expenditure that the Mandal Panchayat may have to incur for holding of the jatra. Rule 3 of the Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 stipulates the manner in which the assessment that precedes the issue of notice under Section 76 of the Act, has to be made. The said rule reads:</p><p>'Manner of determination of contribution.--(1) The Deputy Commissioner may, before determining the contributions under Section 76, call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered, in the places referred to in Sub-section (1) of the said section.</p><p>(2) The Deputy Commissioner may, after consulting the trustee or other person having control over such place and having regard to the report called for under Sub-rule (1), determine the quantum of recurring or non-recurring contribution required to be made to the funds of the Mandal Panchayat under Section 76'.</p><p>Sub-rule (1) mandates the calling of report by the Deputy Commissioner from the Mandal Panchayat concerned before determining the contribution recoverable under Section 76 of the Act. Under Sub-rule (2) the Deputy Commissioner has to consult the trustee or any other person having control over such place before making the determination.</p><p>5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law. Sub-rule (1) requires the Deputy Commissioner to, 'call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered.....'. The expenditure had to be necessarily incurred by the Mandal Panchayat much prior to the actual event as the arrangements to be made are more in the nature of preventive measures to be taken for safeguarding public health, safety etc. The arrangements to be made would be more in the nature of preventing communicable diseases, providing for the security of the people thronging the jatra, making arrangement for the movement of the public etc. Therefore, the contention that the Mandal Panchayat could have had an idea of the probable expenditure only after the completion of the jatra is without substance.</p><p>It is also not the case of the appellant that no such report as envisaged under Sub-rule (1) was called for by the Deputy Commissioner.</p><p>6. The Deputy Commissioner having had consultations under sub-rule (2) of the Rules with the Managing Trustee had, in fact, scaled down the estimation made and fixed the contribution payable by the Temple at Rs. 37,700/-. Such determination being quite in accordance with the Rules, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition.</p><p>7. In our considered opinion, there is no ground much less a valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.</p><p>8. In the result, for the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'ILR2002KAR2296; 2002(2)KarLJ173',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '371660',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/371660/shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The validity and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, is sought to be challenged in this appeal preferred by the appellant-Temple.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Every year during Mahashivarathri Festival, the Temple conducts a jatra which is attended by a large number of persons. During the year 1988 the jatra was scheduled to take place from 11-2-1988 to 19-2-1988. As the gathering in the jatra used to be very large, it necessitated on the part of respondent 3, Mandal Panchayat, to make special arrangements for public health, safety or convenience. The third respondent having tentatively fixed a certain sum held a meeting with the Managing Trustee of the Temple and in the said meeting the probable expenditure likely to be incurred for making arrangements during the jatra was determined as Rs. 37,700/-. The third respondent, thereafter, acting under Section 76 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short) issued notice to the Temple to pay a sum of Rs. 37,700/-. The Temple preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum challenging the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed. In the petition filed before the learned Single Judge the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner were challenged on the ground that the order was notmade in accordance with the Rules. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as without merit. Hence, the present appeal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. We have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner are challenged on the ground that they did not conform with the Rules framed under the Act. The appellant does not dispute the fact that the Deputy Commissioner has the authority under the Act to make an assessment of the probable expenditure that the Mandal Panchayat may have to incur for holding of the jatra. Rule 3 of the Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 stipulates the manner in which the assessment that precedes the issue of notice under Section 76 of the Act, has to be made. The said rule reads:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>'Manner of determination of contribution.--(1) The Deputy Commissioner may, before determining the contributions under Section 76, call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered, in the places referred to in Sub-section (1) of the said section.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(2) The Deputy Commissioner may, after consulting the trustee or other person having control over such place and having regard to the report called for under Sub-rule (1), determine the quantum of recurring or non-recurring contribution required to be made to the funds of the Mandal Panchayat under Section 76'.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>Sub-rule (1) mandates the calling of report by the Deputy Commissioner from the Mandal Panchayat concerned before determining the contribution recoverable under Section 76 of the Act. Under Sub-rule (2) the Deputy Commissioner has to consult the trustee or any other person having control over such place before making the determination.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law. Sub-rule (1) requires the Deputy Commissioner to, 'call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered.....'. The expenditure had to be necessarily incurred by the Mandal Panchayat much prior to the actual event as the arrangements to be made are more in the nature of preventive measures to be taken for safeguarding public health, safety etc. The arrangements to be made would be more in the nature of preventing communicable diseases, providing for the security of the people thronging the jatra, making arrangement for the movement of the public etc. Therefore, the contention that the Mandal Panchayat could have had an idea of the probable expenditure only after the completion of the jatra is without substance.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>It is also not the case of the appellant that no such report as envisaged under Sub-rule (1) was called for by the Deputy Commissioner.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. The Deputy Commissioner having had consultations under sub-rule (2) of the Rules with the Managing Trustee had, in fact, scaled down the estimation made and fixed the contribution payable by the Temple at Rs. 37,700/-. Such determination being quite in accordance with the Rules, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>7. In our considered opinion, there is no ground much less a valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. In the result, for the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev Gokarna Vs the Divisional Commissioner Belgaum Division Belgaum and ors - Citation 371660 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '371660',
			'acts' => 'Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 - Sections 76; Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 - Rule 3 and 3(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 330 of 1999',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna Vs. the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 38, Rule 5: [A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J] Attachment before judgment  Suit for specific performance of agreement  I.As for grant of interim injunctions and attachment before judgment  Held,  Unless the plaintiff establishes that the defendant is attempting to remove or dispose of his assets, with an intention to defeat the decree that may be passed against him, the application under Order 38, Rule 5 cannot be allowed. On facts, held, Trial Court has not recorded in its order that the first defendant is likely to dispose of the schedule property with the intention of defeating the decree that may be passed in the suit. The trial court has ignored the mandatory requirements of Order 38, Rule 5 while passing the impugned order. Hence, plaintiff has not made out any case to exercise power/jurisdiction under Order 38, Rule 5 by the Trial Court. Impugned order was quashed.  -  5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'T.A. Karumbaiah, Adv. for ;T.S. Ramachandra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Srinivasa Gowda and ;S.R. Hudlamane, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-09-06',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The validity and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, is sought to be challenged in this appeal preferred by the appellant-Temple.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Every year during Mahashivarathri Festival, the Temple conducts a jatra which is attended by a large number of persons. During the year 1988 the jatra was scheduled to take place from 11-2-1988 to 19-2-1988. As the gathering in the jatra used to be very large, it necessitated on the part of respondent 3, Mandal Panchayat, to make special arrangements for public health, safety or convenience. The third respondent having tentatively fixed a certain sum held a meeting with the Managing Trustee of the Temple and in the said meeting the probable expenditure likely to be incurred for making arrangements during the jatra was determined as Rs. 37,700/-. The third respondent, thereafter, acting under Section 76 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short) issued notice to the Temple to pay a sum of Rs. 37,700/-. The Temple preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum challenging the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed. In the petition filed before the learned Single Judge the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner were challenged on the ground that the order was notmade in accordance with the Rules. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as without merit. Hence, the present appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. We have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner are challenged on the ground that they did not conform with the Rules framed under the Act. The appellant does not dispute the fact that the Deputy Commissioner has the authority under the Act to make an assessment of the probable expenditure that the Mandal Panchayat may have to incur for holding of the jatra. Rule 3 of the Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 stipulates the manner in which the assessment that precedes the issue of notice under Section 76 of the Act, has to be made. The said rule reads:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Manner of determination of contribution.--(1) The Deputy Commissioner may, before determining the contributions under Section 76, call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered, in the places referred to in Sub-section (1) of the said section.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Deputy Commissioner may, after consulting the trustee or other person having control over such place and having regard to the report called for under Sub-rule (1), determine the quantum of recurring or non-recurring contribution required to be made to the funds of the Mandal Panchayat under Section 76'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sub-rule (1) mandates the calling of report by the Deputy Commissioner from the Mandal Panchayat concerned before determining the contribution recoverable under Section 76 of the Act. Under Sub-rule (2) the Deputy Commissioner has to consult the trustee or any other person having control over such place before making the determination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law. Sub-rule (1) requires the Deputy Commissioner to, 'call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered.....'. The expenditure had to be necessarily incurred by the Mandal Panchayat much prior to the actual event as the arrangements to be made are more in the nature of preventive measures to be taken for safeguarding public health, safety etc. The arrangements to be made would be more in the nature of preventing communicable diseases, providing for the security of the people thronging the jatra, making arrangement for the movement of the public etc. Therefore, the contention that the Mandal Panchayat could have had an idea of the probable expenditure only after the completion of the jatra is without substance.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is also not the case of the appellant that no such report as envisaged under Sub-rule (1) was called for by the Deputy Commissioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The Deputy Commissioner having had consultations under sub-rule (2) of the Rules with the Managing Trustee had, in fact, scaled down the estimation made and fixed the contribution payable by the Temple at Rs. 37,700/-. Such determination being quite in accordance with the Rules, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In our considered opinion, there is no ground much less a valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In the result, for the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'ILR2002KAR2296; 2002(2)KarLJ173',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '371660',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev Gokarna Vs the Divisional Commissioner Belgaum Division Belgaum and ors - Citation 371660 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '371660',
		'acts' => 'Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 - Sections 76; Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 - Rule 3 and 3(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 330 of 1999',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna Vs. the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 38, Rule 5: [A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J] Attachment before judgment  Suit for specific performance of agreement  I.As for grant of interim injunctions and attachment before judgment  Held,  Unless the plaintiff establishes that the defendant is attempting to remove or dispose of his assets, with an intention to defeat the decree that may be passed against him, the application under Order 38, Rule 5 cannot be allowed. On facts, held, Trial Court has not recorded in its order that the first defendant is likely to dispose of the schedule property with the intention of defeating the decree that may be passed in the suit. The trial court has ignored the mandatory requirements of Order 38, Rule 5 while passing the impugned order. Hence, plaintiff has not made out any case to exercise power/jurisdiction under Order 38, Rule 5 by the Trial Court. Impugned order was quashed.  -  5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'T.A. Karumbaiah, Adv. for ;T.S. Ramachandra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Srinivasa Gowda and ;S.R. Hudlamane, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-09-06',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.</p><p>1. The validity and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, is sought to be challenged in this appeal preferred by the appellant-Temple.</p><p>2. Every year during Mahashivarathri Festival, the Temple conducts a jatra which is attended by a large number of persons. During the year 1988 the jatra was scheduled to take place from 11-2-1988 to 19-2-1988. As the gathering in the jatra used to be very large, it necessitated on the part of respondent 3, Mandal Panchayat, to make special arrangements for public health, safety or convenience. The third respondent having tentatively fixed a certain sum held a meeting with the Managing Trustee of the Temple and in the said meeting the probable expenditure likely to be incurred for making arrangements during the jatra was determined as Rs. 37,700/-. The third respondent, thereafter, acting under Section 76 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short) issued notice to the Temple to pay a sum of Rs. 37,700/-. The Temple preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum challenging the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed. In the petition filed before the learned Single Judge the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner were challenged on the ground that the order was notmade in accordance with the Rules. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as without merit. Hence, the present appeal.</p><p>3. We have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.</p><p>4. The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner are challenged on the ground that they did not conform with the Rules framed under the Act. The appellant does not dispute the fact that the Deputy Commissioner has the authority under the Act to make an assessment of the probable expenditure that the Mandal Panchayat may have to incur for holding of the jatra. Rule 3 of the Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 stipulates the manner in which the assessment that precedes the issue of notice under Section 76 of the Act, has to be made. The said rule reads:</p><p>'Manner of determination of contribution.--(1) The Deputy Commissioner may, before determining the contributions under Section 76, call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered, in the places referred to in Sub-section (1) of the said section.</p><p>(2) The Deputy Commissioner may, after consulting the trustee or other person having control over such place and having regard to the report called for under Sub-rule (1), determine the quantum of recurring or non-recurring contribution required to be made to the funds of the Mandal Panchayat under Section 76'.</p><p>Sub-rule (1) mandates the calling of report by the Deputy Commissioner from the Mandal Panchayat concerned before determining the contribution recoverable under Section 76 of the Act. Under Sub-rule (2) the Deputy Commissioner has to consult the trustee or any other person having control over such place before making the determination.</p><p>5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law. Sub-rule (1) requires the Deputy Commissioner to, 'call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered.....'. The expenditure had to be necessarily incurred by the Mandal Panchayat much prior to the actual event as the arrangements to be made are more in the nature of preventive measures to be taken for safeguarding public health, safety etc. The arrangements to be made would be more in the nature of preventing communicable diseases, providing for the security of the people thronging the jatra, making arrangement for the movement of the public etc. Therefore, the contention that the Mandal Panchayat could have had an idea of the probable expenditure only after the completion of the jatra is without substance.</p><p>It is also not the case of the appellant that no such report as envisaged under Sub-rule (1) was called for by the Deputy Commissioner.</p><p>6. The Deputy Commissioner having had consultations under sub-rule (2) of the Rules with the Managing Trustee had, in fact, scaled down the estimation made and fixed the contribution payable by the Temple at Rs. 37,700/-. Such determination being quite in accordance with the Rules, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition.</p><p>7. In our considered opinion, there is no ground much less a valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.</p><p>8. In the result, for the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'ILR2002KAR2296; 2002(2)KarLJ173',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '371660',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/371660/shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The validity and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, is sought to be challenged in this appeal preferred by the appellant-Temple.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Every year during Mahashivarathri Festival, the Temple conducts a jatra which is attended by a large number of persons. During the year 1988 the jatra was scheduled to take place from 11-2-1988 to 19-2-1988. As the gathering in the jatra used to be very large, it necessitated on the part of respondent 3, Mandal Panchayat, to make special arrangements for public health, safety or convenience. The third respondent having tentatively fixed a certain sum held a meeting with the Managing Trustee of the Temple and in the said meeting the probable expenditure likely to be incurred for making arrangements during the jatra was determined as Rs. 37,700/-. The third respondent, thereafter, acting under Section 76 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short) issued notice to the Temple to pay a sum of Rs. 37,700/-. The Temple preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum challenging the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed. In the petition filed before the learned Single Judge the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner were challenged on the ground that the order was notmade in accordance with the Rules. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as without merit. Hence, the present appeal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. We have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner are challenged on the ground that they did not conform with the Rules framed under the Act. The appellant does not dispute the fact that the Deputy Commissioner has the authority under the Act to make an assessment of the probable expenditure that the Mandal Panchayat may have to incur for holding of the jatra. Rule 3 of the Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 stipulates the manner in which the assessment that precedes the issue of notice under Section 76 of the Act, has to be made. The said rule reads:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>'Manner of determination of contribution.--(1) The Deputy Commissioner may, before determining the contributions under Section 76, call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered, in the places referred to in Sub-section (1) of the said section.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(2) The Deputy Commissioner may, after consulting the trustee or other person having control over such place and having regard to the report called for under Sub-rule (1), determine the quantum of recurring or non-recurring contribution required to be made to the funds of the Mandal Panchayat under Section 76'.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>Sub-rule (1) mandates the calling of report by the Deputy Commissioner from the Mandal Panchayat concerned before determining the contribution recoverable under Section 76 of the Act. Under Sub-rule (2) the Deputy Commissioner has to consult the trustee or any other person having control over such place before making the determination.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law. Sub-rule (1) requires the Deputy Commissioner to, 'call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered.....'. The expenditure had to be necessarily incurred by the Mandal Panchayat much prior to the actual event as the arrangements to be made are more in the nature of preventive measures to be taken for safeguarding public health, safety etc. The arrangements to be made would be more in the nature of preventing communicable diseases, providing for the security of the people thronging the jatra, making arrangement for the movement of the public etc. Therefore, the contention that the Mandal Panchayat could have had an idea of the probable expenditure only after the completion of the jatra is without substance.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>It is also not the case of the appellant that no such report as envisaged under Sub-rule (1) was called for by the Deputy Commissioner.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. The Deputy Commissioner having had consultations under sub-rule (2) of the Rules with the Managing Trustee had, in fact, scaled down the estimation made and fixed the contribution payable by the Temple at Rs. 37,700/-. Such determination being quite in accordance with the Rules, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>7. In our considered opinion, there is no ground much less a valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. In the result, for the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. The validity and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, is sought to be challenged in this appeal preferred by the appellant-Temple.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev Gokarna Vs the Divisional Commissioner Belgaum Division Belgaum and ors - Citation 371660 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '371660',
			'acts' => 'Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 - Sections 76; Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 - Rule 3 and 3(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 330 of 1999',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna Vs. the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 38, Rule 5: [A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J] Attachment before judgment  Suit for specific performance of agreement  I.As for grant of interim injunctions and attachment before judgment  Held,  Unless the plaintiff establishes that the defendant is attempting to remove or dispose of his assets, with an intention to defeat the decree that may be passed against him, the application under Order 38, Rule 5 cannot be allowed. On facts, held, Trial Court has not recorded in its order that the first defendant is likely to dispose of the schedule property with the intention of defeating the decree that may be passed in the suit. The trial court has ignored the mandatory requirements of Order 38, Rule 5 while passing the impugned order. Hence, plaintiff has not made out any case to exercise power/jurisdiction under Order 38, Rule 5 by the Trial Court. Impugned order was quashed.  -  5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'T.A. Karumbaiah, Adv. for ;T.S. Ramachandra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Srinivasa Gowda and ;S.R. Hudlamane, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-09-06',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The validity and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, is sought to be challenged in this appeal preferred by the appellant-Temple.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Every year during Mahashivarathri Festival, the Temple conducts a jatra which is attended by a large number of persons. During the year 1988 the jatra was scheduled to take place from 11-2-1988 to 19-2-1988. As the gathering in the jatra used to be very large, it necessitated on the part of respondent 3, Mandal Panchayat, to make special arrangements for public health, safety or convenience. The third respondent having tentatively fixed a certain sum held a meeting with the Managing Trustee of the Temple and in the said meeting the probable expenditure likely to be incurred for making arrangements during the jatra was determined as Rs. 37,700/-. The third respondent, thereafter, acting under Section 76 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short) issued notice to the Temple to pay a sum of Rs. 37,700/-. The Temple preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum challenging the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed. In the petition filed before the learned Single Judge the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner were challenged on the ground that the order was notmade in accordance with the Rules. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as without merit. Hence, the present appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. We have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner are challenged on the ground that they did not conform with the Rules framed under the Act. The appellant does not dispute the fact that the Deputy Commissioner has the authority under the Act to make an assessment of the probable expenditure that the Mandal Panchayat may have to incur for holding of the jatra. Rule 3 of the Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 stipulates the manner in which the assessment that precedes the issue of notice under Section 76 of the Act, has to be made. The said rule reads:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Manner of determination of contribution.--(1) The Deputy Commissioner may, before determining the contributions under Section 76, call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered, in the places referred to in Sub-section (1) of the said section.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Deputy Commissioner may, after consulting the trustee or other person having control over such place and having regard to the report called for under Sub-rule (1), determine the quantum of recurring or non-recurring contribution required to be made to the funds of the Mandal Panchayat under Section 76'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sub-rule (1) mandates the calling of report by the Deputy Commissioner from the Mandal Panchayat concerned before determining the contribution recoverable under Section 76 of the Act. Under Sub-rule (2) the Deputy Commissioner has to consult the trustee or any other person having control over such place before making the determination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law. Sub-rule (1) requires the Deputy Commissioner to, 'call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered.....'. The expenditure had to be necessarily incurred by the Mandal Panchayat much prior to the actual event as the arrangements to be made are more in the nature of preventive measures to be taken for safeguarding public health, safety etc. The arrangements to be made would be more in the nature of preventing communicable diseases, providing for the security of the people thronging the jatra, making arrangement for the movement of the public etc. Therefore, the contention that the Mandal Panchayat could have had an idea of the probable expenditure only after the completion of the jatra is without substance.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is also not the case of the appellant that no such report as envisaged under Sub-rule (1) was called for by the Deputy Commissioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The Deputy Commissioner having had consultations under sub-rule (2) of the Rules with the Managing Trustee had, in fact, scaled down the estimation made and fixed the contribution payable by the Temple at Rs. 37,700/-. Such determination being quite in accordance with the Rules, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In our considered opinion, there is no ground much less a valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In the result, for the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'ILR2002KAR2296; 2002(2)KarLJ173',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '371660',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev Gokarna Vs the Divisional Commissioner Belgaum Division Belgaum and ors - Citation 371660 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '371660',
		'acts' => 'Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 - Sections 76; Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 - Rule 3 and 3(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 330 of 1999',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna Vs. the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 38, Rule 5: [A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J] Attachment before judgment  Suit for specific performance of agreement  I.As for grant of interim injunctions and attachment before judgment  Held,  Unless the plaintiff establishes that the defendant is attempting to remove or dispose of his assets, with an intention to defeat the decree that may be passed against him, the application under Order 38, Rule 5 cannot be allowed. On facts, held, Trial Court has not recorded in its order that the first defendant is likely to dispose of the schedule property with the intention of defeating the decree that may be passed in the suit. The trial court has ignored the mandatory requirements of Order 38, Rule 5 while passing the impugned order. Hence, plaintiff has not made out any case to exercise power/jurisdiction under Order 38, Rule 5 by the Trial Court. Impugned order was quashed.  -  5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'T.A. Karumbaiah, Adv. for ;T.S. Ramachandra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Srinivasa Gowda and ;S.R. Hudlamane, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-09-06',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.</p><p>1. The validity and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, is sought to be challenged in this appeal preferred by the appellant-Temple.</p><p>2. Every year during Mahashivarathri Festival, the Temple conducts a jatra which is attended by a large number of persons. During the year 1988 the jatra was scheduled to take place from 11-2-1988 to 19-2-1988. As the gathering in the jatra used to be very large, it necessitated on the part of respondent 3, Mandal Panchayat, to make special arrangements for public health, safety or convenience. The third respondent having tentatively fixed a certain sum held a meeting with the Managing Trustee of the Temple and in the said meeting the probable expenditure likely to be incurred for making arrangements during the jatra was determined as Rs. 37,700/-. The third respondent, thereafter, acting under Section 76 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short) issued notice to the Temple to pay a sum of Rs. 37,700/-. The Temple preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum challenging the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed. In the petition filed before the learned Single Judge the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner were challenged on the ground that the order was notmade in accordance with the Rules. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as without merit. Hence, the present appeal.</p><p>3. We have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.</p><p>4. The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner are challenged on the ground that they did not conform with the Rules framed under the Act. The appellant does not dispute the fact that the Deputy Commissioner has the authority under the Act to make an assessment of the probable expenditure that the Mandal Panchayat may have to incur for holding of the jatra. Rule 3 of the Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 stipulates the manner in which the assessment that precedes the issue of notice under Section 76 of the Act, has to be made. The said rule reads:</p><p>'Manner of determination of contribution.--(1) The Deputy Commissioner may, before determining the contributions under Section 76, call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered, in the places referred to in Sub-section (1) of the said section.</p><p>(2) The Deputy Commissioner may, after consulting the trustee or other person having control over such place and having regard to the report called for under Sub-rule (1), determine the quantum of recurring or non-recurring contribution required to be made to the funds of the Mandal Panchayat under Section 76'.</p><p>Sub-rule (1) mandates the calling of report by the Deputy Commissioner from the Mandal Panchayat concerned before determining the contribution recoverable under Section 76 of the Act. Under Sub-rule (2) the Deputy Commissioner has to consult the trustee or any other person having control over such place before making the determination.</p><p>5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law. Sub-rule (1) requires the Deputy Commissioner to, 'call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered.....'. The expenditure had to be necessarily incurred by the Mandal Panchayat much prior to the actual event as the arrangements to be made are more in the nature of preventive measures to be taken for safeguarding public health, safety etc. The arrangements to be made would be more in the nature of preventing communicable diseases, providing for the security of the people thronging the jatra, making arrangement for the movement of the public etc. Therefore, the contention that the Mandal Panchayat could have had an idea of the probable expenditure only after the completion of the jatra is without substance.</p><p>It is also not the case of the appellant that no such report as envisaged under Sub-rule (1) was called for by the Deputy Commissioner.</p><p>6. The Deputy Commissioner having had consultations under sub-rule (2) of the Rules with the Managing Trustee had, in fact, scaled down the estimation made and fixed the contribution payable by the Temple at Rs. 37,700/-. Such determination being quite in accordance with the Rules, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition.</p><p>7. In our considered opinion, there is no ground much less a valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.</p><p>8. In the result, for the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'ILR2002KAR2296; 2002(2)KarLJ173',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '371660',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/371660/shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The validity and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, is sought to be challenged in this appeal preferred by the appellant-Temple.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Every year during Mahashivarathri Festival, the Temple conducts a jatra which is attended by a large number of persons. During the year 1988 the jatra was scheduled to take place from 11-2-1988 to 19-2-1988. As the gathering in the jatra used to be very large, it necessitated on the part of respondent 3, Mandal Panchayat, to make special arrangements for public health, safety or convenience. The third respondent having tentatively fixed a certain sum held a meeting with the Managing Trustee of the Temple and in the said meeting the probable expenditure likely to be incurred for making arrangements during the jatra was determined as Rs. 37,700/-. The third respondent, thereafter, acting under Section 76 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short) issued notice to the Temple to pay a sum of Rs. 37,700/-. The Temple preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum challenging the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed. In the petition filed before the learned Single Judge the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner were challenged on the ground that the order was notmade in accordance with the Rules. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as without merit. Hence, the present appeal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. We have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner are challenged on the ground that they did not conform with the Rules framed under the Act. The appellant does not dispute the fact that the Deputy Commissioner has the authority under the Act to make an assessment of the probable expenditure that the Mandal Panchayat may have to incur for holding of the jatra. Rule 3 of the Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 stipulates the manner in which the assessment that precedes the issue of notice under Section 76 of the Act, has to be made. The said rule reads:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>'Manner of determination of contribution.--(1) The Deputy Commissioner may, before determining the contributions under Section 76, call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered, in the places referred to in Sub-section (1) of the said section.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(2) The Deputy Commissioner may, after consulting the trustee or other person having control over such place and having regard to the report called for under Sub-rule (1), determine the quantum of recurring or non-recurring contribution required to be made to the funds of the Mandal Panchayat under Section 76'.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>Sub-rule (1) mandates the calling of report by the Deputy Commissioner from the Mandal Panchayat concerned before determining the contribution recoverable under Section 76 of the Act. Under Sub-rule (2) the Deputy Commissioner has to consult the trustee or any other person having control over such place before making the determination.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law. Sub-rule (1) requires the Deputy Commissioner to, 'call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered.....'. The expenditure had to be necessarily incurred by the Mandal Panchayat much prior to the actual event as the arrangements to be made are more in the nature of preventive measures to be taken for safeguarding public health, safety etc. The arrangements to be made would be more in the nature of preventing communicable diseases, providing for the security of the people thronging the jatra, making arrangement for the movement of the public etc. Therefore, the contention that the Mandal Panchayat could have had an idea of the probable expenditure only after the completion of the jatra is without substance.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>It is also not the case of the appellant that no such report as envisaged under Sub-rule (1) was called for by the Deputy Commissioner.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. The Deputy Commissioner having had consultations under sub-rule (2) of the Rules with the Managing Trustee had, in fact, scaled down the estimation made and fixed the contribution payable by the Temple at Rs. 37,700/-. Such determination being quite in accordance with the Rules, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>7. In our considered opinion, there is no ground much less a valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. In the result, for the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. Every year during Mahashivarathri Festival, the Temple conducts a jatra which is attended by a large number of persons. During the year 1988 the jatra was scheduled to take place from 11-2-1988 to 19-2-1988. As the gathering in the jatra used to be very large, it necessitated on the part of respondent 3, Mandal Panchayat, to make special arrangements for public health, safety or convenience. The third respondent having tentatively fixed a certain sum held a meeting with the Managing Trustee of the Temple and in the said meeting the probable expenditure likely to be incurred for making arrangements during the jatra was determined as Rs. 37,700/-. The third respondent, thereafter, acting under Section 76 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short) issued notice to the Temple to pay a sum of Rs. 37,700/-. The Temple preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum challenging the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed. In the petition filed before the learned Single Judge the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner were challenged on the ground that the order was notmade in accordance with the Rules. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as without merit. Hence, the present appeal.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev Gokarna Vs the Divisional Commissioner Belgaum Division Belgaum and ors - Citation 371660 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '371660',
			'acts' => 'Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 - Sections 76; Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 - Rule 3 and 3(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 330 of 1999',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna Vs. the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 38, Rule 5: [A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J] Attachment before judgment  Suit for specific performance of agreement  I.As for grant of interim injunctions and attachment before judgment  Held,  Unless the plaintiff establishes that the defendant is attempting to remove or dispose of his assets, with an intention to defeat the decree that may be passed against him, the application under Order 38, Rule 5 cannot be allowed. On facts, held, Trial Court has not recorded in its order that the first defendant is likely to dispose of the schedule property with the intention of defeating the decree that may be passed in the suit. The trial court has ignored the mandatory requirements of Order 38, Rule 5 while passing the impugned order. Hence, plaintiff has not made out any case to exercise power/jurisdiction under Order 38, Rule 5 by the Trial Court. Impugned order was quashed.  -  5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'T.A. Karumbaiah, Adv. for ;T.S. Ramachandra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Srinivasa Gowda and ;S.R. Hudlamane, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-09-06',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The validity and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, is sought to be challenged in this appeal preferred by the appellant-Temple.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Every year during Mahashivarathri Festival, the Temple conducts a jatra which is attended by a large number of persons. During the year 1988 the jatra was scheduled to take place from 11-2-1988 to 19-2-1988. As the gathering in the jatra used to be very large, it necessitated on the part of respondent 3, Mandal Panchayat, to make special arrangements for public health, safety or convenience. The third respondent having tentatively fixed a certain sum held a meeting with the Managing Trustee of the Temple and in the said meeting the probable expenditure likely to be incurred for making arrangements during the jatra was determined as Rs. 37,700/-. The third respondent, thereafter, acting under Section 76 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short) issued notice to the Temple to pay a sum of Rs. 37,700/-. The Temple preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum challenging the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed. In the petition filed before the learned Single Judge the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner were challenged on the ground that the order was notmade in accordance with the Rules. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as without merit. Hence, the present appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. We have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner are challenged on the ground that they did not conform with the Rules framed under the Act. The appellant does not dispute the fact that the Deputy Commissioner has the authority under the Act to make an assessment of the probable expenditure that the Mandal Panchayat may have to incur for holding of the jatra. Rule 3 of the Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 stipulates the manner in which the assessment that precedes the issue of notice under Section 76 of the Act, has to be made. The said rule reads:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Manner of determination of contribution.--(1) The Deputy Commissioner may, before determining the contributions under Section 76, call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered, in the places referred to in Sub-section (1) of the said section.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Deputy Commissioner may, after consulting the trustee or other person having control over such place and having regard to the report called for under Sub-rule (1), determine the quantum of recurring or non-recurring contribution required to be made to the funds of the Mandal Panchayat under Section 76'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sub-rule (1) mandates the calling of report by the Deputy Commissioner from the Mandal Panchayat concerned before determining the contribution recoverable under Section 76 of the Act. Under Sub-rule (2) the Deputy Commissioner has to consult the trustee or any other person having control over such place before making the determination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law. Sub-rule (1) requires the Deputy Commissioner to, 'call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered.....'. The expenditure had to be necessarily incurred by the Mandal Panchayat much prior to the actual event as the arrangements to be made are more in the nature of preventive measures to be taken for safeguarding public health, safety etc. The arrangements to be made would be more in the nature of preventing communicable diseases, providing for the security of the people thronging the jatra, making arrangement for the movement of the public etc. Therefore, the contention that the Mandal Panchayat could have had an idea of the probable expenditure only after the completion of the jatra is without substance.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is also not the case of the appellant that no such report as envisaged under Sub-rule (1) was called for by the Deputy Commissioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The Deputy Commissioner having had consultations under sub-rule (2) of the Rules with the Managing Trustee had, in fact, scaled down the estimation made and fixed the contribution payable by the Temple at Rs. 37,700/-. Such determination being quite in accordance with the Rules, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In our considered opinion, there is no ground much less a valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In the result, for the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'ILR2002KAR2296; 2002(2)KarLJ173',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '371660',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev Gokarna Vs the Divisional Commissioner Belgaum Division Belgaum and ors - Citation 371660 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '371660',
		'acts' => 'Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 - Sections 76; Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 - Rule 3 and 3(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 330 of 1999',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna Vs. the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 38, Rule 5: [A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J] Attachment before judgment  Suit for specific performance of agreement  I.As for grant of interim injunctions and attachment before judgment  Held,  Unless the plaintiff establishes that the defendant is attempting to remove or dispose of his assets, with an intention to defeat the decree that may be passed against him, the application under Order 38, Rule 5 cannot be allowed. On facts, held, Trial Court has not recorded in its order that the first defendant is likely to dispose of the schedule property with the intention of defeating the decree that may be passed in the suit. The trial court has ignored the mandatory requirements of Order 38, Rule 5 while passing the impugned order. Hence, plaintiff has not made out any case to exercise power/jurisdiction under Order 38, Rule 5 by the Trial Court. Impugned order was quashed.  -  5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'T.A. Karumbaiah, Adv. for ;T.S. Ramachandra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Srinivasa Gowda and ;S.R. Hudlamane, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-09-06',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.</p><p>1. The validity and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, is sought to be challenged in this appeal preferred by the appellant-Temple.</p><p>2. Every year during Mahashivarathri Festival, the Temple conducts a jatra which is attended by a large number of persons. During the year 1988 the jatra was scheduled to take place from 11-2-1988 to 19-2-1988. As the gathering in the jatra used to be very large, it necessitated on the part of respondent 3, Mandal Panchayat, to make special arrangements for public health, safety or convenience. The third respondent having tentatively fixed a certain sum held a meeting with the Managing Trustee of the Temple and in the said meeting the probable expenditure likely to be incurred for making arrangements during the jatra was determined as Rs. 37,700/-. The third respondent, thereafter, acting under Section 76 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short) issued notice to the Temple to pay a sum of Rs. 37,700/-. The Temple preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum challenging the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed. In the petition filed before the learned Single Judge the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner were challenged on the ground that the order was notmade in accordance with the Rules. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as without merit. Hence, the present appeal.</p><p>3. We have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.</p><p>4. The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner are challenged on the ground that they did not conform with the Rules framed under the Act. The appellant does not dispute the fact that the Deputy Commissioner has the authority under the Act to make an assessment of the probable expenditure that the Mandal Panchayat may have to incur for holding of the jatra. Rule 3 of the Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 stipulates the manner in which the assessment that precedes the issue of notice under Section 76 of the Act, has to be made. The said rule reads:</p><p>'Manner of determination of contribution.--(1) The Deputy Commissioner may, before determining the contributions under Section 76, call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered, in the places referred to in Sub-section (1) of the said section.</p><p>(2) The Deputy Commissioner may, after consulting the trustee or other person having control over such place and having regard to the report called for under Sub-rule (1), determine the quantum of recurring or non-recurring contribution required to be made to the funds of the Mandal Panchayat under Section 76'.</p><p>Sub-rule (1) mandates the calling of report by the Deputy Commissioner from the Mandal Panchayat concerned before determining the contribution recoverable under Section 76 of the Act. Under Sub-rule (2) the Deputy Commissioner has to consult the trustee or any other person having control over such place before making the determination.</p><p>5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law. Sub-rule (1) requires the Deputy Commissioner to, 'call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered.....'. The expenditure had to be necessarily incurred by the Mandal Panchayat much prior to the actual event as the arrangements to be made are more in the nature of preventive measures to be taken for safeguarding public health, safety etc. The arrangements to be made would be more in the nature of preventing communicable diseases, providing for the security of the people thronging the jatra, making arrangement for the movement of the public etc. Therefore, the contention that the Mandal Panchayat could have had an idea of the probable expenditure only after the completion of the jatra is without substance.</p><p>It is also not the case of the appellant that no such report as envisaged under Sub-rule (1) was called for by the Deputy Commissioner.</p><p>6. The Deputy Commissioner having had consultations under sub-rule (2) of the Rules with the Managing Trustee had, in fact, scaled down the estimation made and fixed the contribution payable by the Temple at Rs. 37,700/-. Such determination being quite in accordance with the Rules, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition.</p><p>7. In our considered opinion, there is no ground much less a valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.</p><p>8. In the result, for the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'ILR2002KAR2296; 2002(2)KarLJ173',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '371660',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/371660/shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The validity and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, is sought to be challenged in this appeal preferred by the appellant-Temple.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Every year during Mahashivarathri Festival, the Temple conducts a jatra which is attended by a large number of persons. During the year 1988 the jatra was scheduled to take place from 11-2-1988 to 19-2-1988. As the gathering in the jatra used to be very large, it necessitated on the part of respondent 3, Mandal Panchayat, to make special arrangements for public health, safety or convenience. The third respondent having tentatively fixed a certain sum held a meeting with the Managing Trustee of the Temple and in the said meeting the probable expenditure likely to be incurred for making arrangements during the jatra was determined as Rs. 37,700/-. The third respondent, thereafter, acting under Section 76 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short) issued notice to the Temple to pay a sum of Rs. 37,700/-. The Temple preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum challenging the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed. In the petition filed before the learned Single Judge the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner were challenged on the ground that the order was notmade in accordance with the Rules. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as without merit. Hence, the present appeal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. We have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner are challenged on the ground that they did not conform with the Rules framed under the Act. The appellant does not dispute the fact that the Deputy Commissioner has the authority under the Act to make an assessment of the probable expenditure that the Mandal Panchayat may have to incur for holding of the jatra. Rule 3 of the Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 stipulates the manner in which the assessment that precedes the issue of notice under Section 76 of the Act, has to be made. The said rule reads:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>'Manner of determination of contribution.--(1) The Deputy Commissioner may, before determining the contributions under Section 76, call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered, in the places referred to in Sub-section (1) of the said section.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(2) The Deputy Commissioner may, after consulting the trustee or other person having control over such place and having regard to the report called for under Sub-rule (1), determine the quantum of recurring or non-recurring contribution required to be made to the funds of the Mandal Panchayat under Section 76'.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>Sub-rule (1) mandates the calling of report by the Deputy Commissioner from the Mandal Panchayat concerned before determining the contribution recoverable under Section 76 of the Act. Under Sub-rule (2) the Deputy Commissioner has to consult the trustee or any other person having control over such place before making the determination.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law. Sub-rule (1) requires the Deputy Commissioner to, 'call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered.....'. The expenditure had to be necessarily incurred by the Mandal Panchayat much prior to the actual event as the arrangements to be made are more in the nature of preventive measures to be taken for safeguarding public health, safety etc. The arrangements to be made would be more in the nature of preventing communicable diseases, providing for the security of the people thronging the jatra, making arrangement for the movement of the public etc. Therefore, the contention that the Mandal Panchayat could have had an idea of the probable expenditure only after the completion of the jatra is without substance.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>It is also not the case of the appellant that no such report as envisaged under Sub-rule (1) was called for by the Deputy Commissioner.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. The Deputy Commissioner having had consultations under sub-rule (2) of the Rules with the Managing Trustee had, in fact, scaled down the estimation made and fixed the contribution payable by the Temple at Rs. 37,700/-. Such determination being quite in accordance with the Rules, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>7. In our considered opinion, there is no ground much less a valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. In the result, for the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. We have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev Gokarna Vs the Divisional Commissioner Belgaum Division Belgaum and ors - Citation 371660 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '371660',
			'acts' => 'Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 - Sections 76; Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 - Rule 3 and 3(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 330 of 1999',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna Vs. the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 38, Rule 5: [A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J] Attachment before judgment  Suit for specific performance of agreement  I.As for grant of interim injunctions and attachment before judgment  Held,  Unless the plaintiff establishes that the defendant is attempting to remove or dispose of his assets, with an intention to defeat the decree that may be passed against him, the application under Order 38, Rule 5 cannot be allowed. On facts, held, Trial Court has not recorded in its order that the first defendant is likely to dispose of the schedule property with the intention of defeating the decree that may be passed in the suit. The trial court has ignored the mandatory requirements of Order 38, Rule 5 while passing the impugned order. Hence, plaintiff has not made out any case to exercise power/jurisdiction under Order 38, Rule 5 by the Trial Court. Impugned order was quashed.  -  5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'T.A. Karumbaiah, Adv. for ;T.S. Ramachandra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Srinivasa Gowda and ;S.R. Hudlamane, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-09-06',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The validity and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, is sought to be challenged in this appeal preferred by the appellant-Temple.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Every year during Mahashivarathri Festival, the Temple conducts a jatra which is attended by a large number of persons. During the year 1988 the jatra was scheduled to take place from 11-2-1988 to 19-2-1988. As the gathering in the jatra used to be very large, it necessitated on the part of respondent 3, Mandal Panchayat, to make special arrangements for public health, safety or convenience. The third respondent having tentatively fixed a certain sum held a meeting with the Managing Trustee of the Temple and in the said meeting the probable expenditure likely to be incurred for making arrangements during the jatra was determined as Rs. 37,700/-. The third respondent, thereafter, acting under Section 76 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short) issued notice to the Temple to pay a sum of Rs. 37,700/-. The Temple preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum challenging the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed. In the petition filed before the learned Single Judge the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner were challenged on the ground that the order was notmade in accordance with the Rules. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as without merit. Hence, the present appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. We have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner are challenged on the ground that they did not conform with the Rules framed under the Act. The appellant does not dispute the fact that the Deputy Commissioner has the authority under the Act to make an assessment of the probable expenditure that the Mandal Panchayat may have to incur for holding of the jatra. Rule 3 of the Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 stipulates the manner in which the assessment that precedes the issue of notice under Section 76 of the Act, has to be made. The said rule reads:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Manner of determination of contribution.--(1) The Deputy Commissioner may, before determining the contributions under Section 76, call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered, in the places referred to in Sub-section (1) of the said section.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Deputy Commissioner may, after consulting the trustee or other person having control over such place and having regard to the report called for under Sub-rule (1), determine the quantum of recurring or non-recurring contribution required to be made to the funds of the Mandal Panchayat under Section 76'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sub-rule (1) mandates the calling of report by the Deputy Commissioner from the Mandal Panchayat concerned before determining the contribution recoverable under Section 76 of the Act. Under Sub-rule (2) the Deputy Commissioner has to consult the trustee or any other person having control over such place before making the determination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law. Sub-rule (1) requires the Deputy Commissioner to, 'call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered.....'. The expenditure had to be necessarily incurred by the Mandal Panchayat much prior to the actual event as the arrangements to be made are more in the nature of preventive measures to be taken for safeguarding public health, safety etc. The arrangements to be made would be more in the nature of preventing communicable diseases, providing for the security of the people thronging the jatra, making arrangement for the movement of the public etc. Therefore, the contention that the Mandal Panchayat could have had an idea of the probable expenditure only after the completion of the jatra is without substance.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is also not the case of the appellant that no such report as envisaged under Sub-rule (1) was called for by the Deputy Commissioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The Deputy Commissioner having had consultations under sub-rule (2) of the Rules with the Managing Trustee had, in fact, scaled down the estimation made and fixed the contribution payable by the Temple at Rs. 37,700/-. Such determination being quite in accordance with the Rules, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In our considered opinion, there is no ground much less a valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In the result, for the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'ILR2002KAR2296; 2002(2)KarLJ173',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '371660',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev Gokarna Vs the Divisional Commissioner Belgaum Division Belgaum and ors - Citation 371660 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '371660',
		'acts' => 'Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 - Sections 76; Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 - Rule 3 and 3(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 330 of 1999',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna Vs. the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 38, Rule 5: [A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J] Attachment before judgment  Suit for specific performance of agreement  I.As for grant of interim injunctions and attachment before judgment  Held,  Unless the plaintiff establishes that the defendant is attempting to remove or dispose of his assets, with an intention to defeat the decree that may be passed against him, the application under Order 38, Rule 5 cannot be allowed. On facts, held, Trial Court has not recorded in its order that the first defendant is likely to dispose of the schedule property with the intention of defeating the decree that may be passed in the suit. The trial court has ignored the mandatory requirements of Order 38, Rule 5 while passing the impugned order. Hence, plaintiff has not made out any case to exercise power/jurisdiction under Order 38, Rule 5 by the Trial Court. Impugned order was quashed.  -  5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'T.A. Karumbaiah, Adv. for ;T.S. Ramachandra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Srinivasa Gowda and ;S.R. Hudlamane, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-09-06',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.</p><p>1. The validity and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, is sought to be challenged in this appeal preferred by the appellant-Temple.</p><p>2. Every year during Mahashivarathri Festival, the Temple conducts a jatra which is attended by a large number of persons. During the year 1988 the jatra was scheduled to take place from 11-2-1988 to 19-2-1988. As the gathering in the jatra used to be very large, it necessitated on the part of respondent 3, Mandal Panchayat, to make special arrangements for public health, safety or convenience. The third respondent having tentatively fixed a certain sum held a meeting with the Managing Trustee of the Temple and in the said meeting the probable expenditure likely to be incurred for making arrangements during the jatra was determined as Rs. 37,700/-. The third respondent, thereafter, acting under Section 76 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short) issued notice to the Temple to pay a sum of Rs. 37,700/-. The Temple preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum challenging the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed. In the petition filed before the learned Single Judge the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner were challenged on the ground that the order was notmade in accordance with the Rules. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as without merit. Hence, the present appeal.</p><p>3. We have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.</p><p>4. The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner are challenged on the ground that they did not conform with the Rules framed under the Act. The appellant does not dispute the fact that the Deputy Commissioner has the authority under the Act to make an assessment of the probable expenditure that the Mandal Panchayat may have to incur for holding of the jatra. Rule 3 of the Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 stipulates the manner in which the assessment that precedes the issue of notice under Section 76 of the Act, has to be made. The said rule reads:</p><p>'Manner of determination of contribution.--(1) The Deputy Commissioner may, before determining the contributions under Section 76, call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered, in the places referred to in Sub-section (1) of the said section.</p><p>(2) The Deputy Commissioner may, after consulting the trustee or other person having control over such place and having regard to the report called for under Sub-rule (1), determine the quantum of recurring or non-recurring contribution required to be made to the funds of the Mandal Panchayat under Section 76'.</p><p>Sub-rule (1) mandates the calling of report by the Deputy Commissioner from the Mandal Panchayat concerned before determining the contribution recoverable under Section 76 of the Act. Under Sub-rule (2) the Deputy Commissioner has to consult the trustee or any other person having control over such place before making the determination.</p><p>5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law. Sub-rule (1) requires the Deputy Commissioner to, 'call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered.....'. The expenditure had to be necessarily incurred by the Mandal Panchayat much prior to the actual event as the arrangements to be made are more in the nature of preventive measures to be taken for safeguarding public health, safety etc. The arrangements to be made would be more in the nature of preventing communicable diseases, providing for the security of the people thronging the jatra, making arrangement for the movement of the public etc. Therefore, the contention that the Mandal Panchayat could have had an idea of the probable expenditure only after the completion of the jatra is without substance.</p><p>It is also not the case of the appellant that no such report as envisaged under Sub-rule (1) was called for by the Deputy Commissioner.</p><p>6. The Deputy Commissioner having had consultations under sub-rule (2) of the Rules with the Managing Trustee had, in fact, scaled down the estimation made and fixed the contribution payable by the Temple at Rs. 37,700/-. Such determination being quite in accordance with the Rules, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition.</p><p>7. In our considered opinion, there is no ground much less a valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.</p><p>8. In the result, for the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'ILR2002KAR2296; 2002(2)KarLJ173',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '371660',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/371660/shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The validity and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, is sought to be challenged in this appeal preferred by the appellant-Temple.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Every year during Mahashivarathri Festival, the Temple conducts a jatra which is attended by a large number of persons. During the year 1988 the jatra was scheduled to take place from 11-2-1988 to 19-2-1988. As the gathering in the jatra used to be very large, it necessitated on the part of respondent 3, Mandal Panchayat, to make special arrangements for public health, safety or convenience. The third respondent having tentatively fixed a certain sum held a meeting with the Managing Trustee of the Temple and in the said meeting the probable expenditure likely to be incurred for making arrangements during the jatra was determined as Rs. 37,700/-. The third respondent, thereafter, acting under Section 76 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short) issued notice to the Temple to pay a sum of Rs. 37,700/-. The Temple preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum challenging the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed. In the petition filed before the learned Single Judge the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner were challenged on the ground that the order was notmade in accordance with the Rules. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as without merit. Hence, the present appeal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. We have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner are challenged on the ground that they did not conform with the Rules framed under the Act. The appellant does not dispute the fact that the Deputy Commissioner has the authority under the Act to make an assessment of the probable expenditure that the Mandal Panchayat may have to incur for holding of the jatra. Rule 3 of the Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 stipulates the manner in which the assessment that precedes the issue of notice under Section 76 of the Act, has to be made. The said rule reads:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>'Manner of determination of contribution.--(1) The Deputy Commissioner may, before determining the contributions under Section 76, call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered, in the places referred to in Sub-section (1) of the said section.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(2) The Deputy Commissioner may, after consulting the trustee or other person having control over such place and having regard to the report called for under Sub-rule (1), determine the quantum of recurring or non-recurring contribution required to be made to the funds of the Mandal Panchayat under Section 76'.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>Sub-rule (1) mandates the calling of report by the Deputy Commissioner from the Mandal Panchayat concerned before determining the contribution recoverable under Section 76 of the Act. Under Sub-rule (2) the Deputy Commissioner has to consult the trustee or any other person having control over such place before making the determination.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law. Sub-rule (1) requires the Deputy Commissioner to, 'call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered.....'. The expenditure had to be necessarily incurred by the Mandal Panchayat much prior to the actual event as the arrangements to be made are more in the nature of preventive measures to be taken for safeguarding public health, safety etc. The arrangements to be made would be more in the nature of preventing communicable diseases, providing for the security of the people thronging the jatra, making arrangement for the movement of the public etc. Therefore, the contention that the Mandal Panchayat could have had an idea of the probable expenditure only after the completion of the jatra is without substance.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>It is also not the case of the appellant that no such report as envisaged under Sub-rule (1) was called for by the Deputy Commissioner.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. The Deputy Commissioner having had consultations under sub-rule (2) of the Rules with the Managing Trustee had, in fact, scaled down the estimation made and fixed the contribution payable by the Temple at Rs. 37,700/-. Such determination being quite in accordance with the Rules, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>7. In our considered opinion, there is no ground much less a valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. In the result, for the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner are challenged on the ground that they did not conform with the Rules framed under the Act. The appellant does not dispute the fact that the Deputy Commissioner has the authority under the Act to make an assessment of the probable expenditure that the Mandal Panchayat may have to incur for holding of the jatra. Rule 3 of the Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 stipulates the manner in which the assessment that precedes the issue of notice under Section 76 of the Act, has to be made. The said rule reads:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev Gokarna Vs the Divisional Commissioner Belgaum Division Belgaum and ors - Citation 371660 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '371660',
			'acts' => 'Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 - Sections 76; Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 - Rule 3 and 3(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 330 of 1999',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna Vs. the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 38, Rule 5: [A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J] Attachment before judgment  Suit for specific performance of agreement  I.As for grant of interim injunctions and attachment before judgment  Held,  Unless the plaintiff establishes that the defendant is attempting to remove or dispose of his assets, with an intention to defeat the decree that may be passed against him, the application under Order 38, Rule 5 cannot be allowed. On facts, held, Trial Court has not recorded in its order that the first defendant is likely to dispose of the schedule property with the intention of defeating the decree that may be passed in the suit. The trial court has ignored the mandatory requirements of Order 38, Rule 5 while passing the impugned order. Hence, plaintiff has not made out any case to exercise power/jurisdiction under Order 38, Rule 5 by the Trial Court. Impugned order was quashed.  -  5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'T.A. Karumbaiah, Adv. for ;T.S. Ramachandra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Srinivasa Gowda and ;S.R. Hudlamane, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-09-06',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The validity and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, is sought to be challenged in this appeal preferred by the appellant-Temple.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Every year during Mahashivarathri Festival, the Temple conducts a jatra which is attended by a large number of persons. During the year 1988 the jatra was scheduled to take place from 11-2-1988 to 19-2-1988. As the gathering in the jatra used to be very large, it necessitated on the part of respondent 3, Mandal Panchayat, to make special arrangements for public health, safety or convenience. The third respondent having tentatively fixed a certain sum held a meeting with the Managing Trustee of the Temple and in the said meeting the probable expenditure likely to be incurred for making arrangements during the jatra was determined as Rs. 37,700/-. The third respondent, thereafter, acting under Section 76 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short) issued notice to the Temple to pay a sum of Rs. 37,700/-. The Temple preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum challenging the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed. In the petition filed before the learned Single Judge the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner were challenged on the ground that the order was notmade in accordance with the Rules. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as without merit. Hence, the present appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. We have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner are challenged on the ground that they did not conform with the Rules framed under the Act. The appellant does not dispute the fact that the Deputy Commissioner has the authority under the Act to make an assessment of the probable expenditure that the Mandal Panchayat may have to incur for holding of the jatra. Rule 3 of the Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 stipulates the manner in which the assessment that precedes the issue of notice under Section 76 of the Act, has to be made. The said rule reads:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Manner of determination of contribution.--(1) The Deputy Commissioner may, before determining the contributions under Section 76, call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered, in the places referred to in Sub-section (1) of the said section.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Deputy Commissioner may, after consulting the trustee or other person having control over such place and having regard to the report called for under Sub-rule (1), determine the quantum of recurring or non-recurring contribution required to be made to the funds of the Mandal Panchayat under Section 76'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sub-rule (1) mandates the calling of report by the Deputy Commissioner from the Mandal Panchayat concerned before determining the contribution recoverable under Section 76 of the Act. Under Sub-rule (2) the Deputy Commissioner has to consult the trustee or any other person having control over such place before making the determination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law. Sub-rule (1) requires the Deputy Commissioner to, 'call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered.....'. The expenditure had to be necessarily incurred by the Mandal Panchayat much prior to the actual event as the arrangements to be made are more in the nature of preventive measures to be taken for safeguarding public health, safety etc. The arrangements to be made would be more in the nature of preventing communicable diseases, providing for the security of the people thronging the jatra, making arrangement for the movement of the public etc. Therefore, the contention that the Mandal Panchayat could have had an idea of the probable expenditure only after the completion of the jatra is without substance.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is also not the case of the appellant that no such report as envisaged under Sub-rule (1) was called for by the Deputy Commissioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The Deputy Commissioner having had consultations under sub-rule (2) of the Rules with the Managing Trustee had, in fact, scaled down the estimation made and fixed the contribution payable by the Temple at Rs. 37,700/-. Such determination being quite in accordance with the Rules, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In our considered opinion, there is no ground much less a valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In the result, for the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'ILR2002KAR2296; 2002(2)KarLJ173',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '371660',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev Gokarna Vs the Divisional Commissioner Belgaum Division Belgaum and ors - Citation 371660 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '371660',
		'acts' => 'Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 - Sections 76; Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 - Rule 3 and 3(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 330 of 1999',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna Vs. the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 38, Rule 5: [A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J] Attachment before judgment  Suit for specific performance of agreement  I.As for grant of interim injunctions and attachment before judgment  Held,  Unless the plaintiff establishes that the defendant is attempting to remove or dispose of his assets, with an intention to defeat the decree that may be passed against him, the application under Order 38, Rule 5 cannot be allowed. On facts, held, Trial Court has not recorded in its order that the first defendant is likely to dispose of the schedule property with the intention of defeating the decree that may be passed in the suit. The trial court has ignored the mandatory requirements of Order 38, Rule 5 while passing the impugned order. Hence, plaintiff has not made out any case to exercise power/jurisdiction under Order 38, Rule 5 by the Trial Court. Impugned order was quashed.  -  5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'T.A. Karumbaiah, Adv. for ;T.S. Ramachandra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Srinivasa Gowda and ;S.R. Hudlamane, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-09-06',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.</p><p>1. The validity and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, is sought to be challenged in this appeal preferred by the appellant-Temple.</p><p>2. Every year during Mahashivarathri Festival, the Temple conducts a jatra which is attended by a large number of persons. During the year 1988 the jatra was scheduled to take place from 11-2-1988 to 19-2-1988. As the gathering in the jatra used to be very large, it necessitated on the part of respondent 3, Mandal Panchayat, to make special arrangements for public health, safety or convenience. The third respondent having tentatively fixed a certain sum held a meeting with the Managing Trustee of the Temple and in the said meeting the probable expenditure likely to be incurred for making arrangements during the jatra was determined as Rs. 37,700/-. The third respondent, thereafter, acting under Section 76 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short) issued notice to the Temple to pay a sum of Rs. 37,700/-. The Temple preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum challenging the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed. In the petition filed before the learned Single Judge the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner were challenged on the ground that the order was notmade in accordance with the Rules. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as without merit. Hence, the present appeal.</p><p>3. We have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.</p><p>4. The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner are challenged on the ground that they did not conform with the Rules framed under the Act. The appellant does not dispute the fact that the Deputy Commissioner has the authority under the Act to make an assessment of the probable expenditure that the Mandal Panchayat may have to incur for holding of the jatra. Rule 3 of the Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 stipulates the manner in which the assessment that precedes the issue of notice under Section 76 of the Act, has to be made. The said rule reads:</p><p>'Manner of determination of contribution.--(1) The Deputy Commissioner may, before determining the contributions under Section 76, call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered, in the places referred to in Sub-section (1) of the said section.</p><p>(2) The Deputy Commissioner may, after consulting the trustee or other person having control over such place and having regard to the report called for under Sub-rule (1), determine the quantum of recurring or non-recurring contribution required to be made to the funds of the Mandal Panchayat under Section 76'.</p><p>Sub-rule (1) mandates the calling of report by the Deputy Commissioner from the Mandal Panchayat concerned before determining the contribution recoverable under Section 76 of the Act. Under Sub-rule (2) the Deputy Commissioner has to consult the trustee or any other person having control over such place before making the determination.</p><p>5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law. Sub-rule (1) requires the Deputy Commissioner to, 'call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered.....'. The expenditure had to be necessarily incurred by the Mandal Panchayat much prior to the actual event as the arrangements to be made are more in the nature of preventive measures to be taken for safeguarding public health, safety etc. The arrangements to be made would be more in the nature of preventing communicable diseases, providing for the security of the people thronging the jatra, making arrangement for the movement of the public etc. Therefore, the contention that the Mandal Panchayat could have had an idea of the probable expenditure only after the completion of the jatra is without substance.</p><p>It is also not the case of the appellant that no such report as envisaged under Sub-rule (1) was called for by the Deputy Commissioner.</p><p>6. The Deputy Commissioner having had consultations under sub-rule (2) of the Rules with the Managing Trustee had, in fact, scaled down the estimation made and fixed the contribution payable by the Temple at Rs. 37,700/-. Such determination being quite in accordance with the Rules, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition.</p><p>7. In our considered opinion, there is no ground much less a valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.</p><p>8. In the result, for the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'ILR2002KAR2296; 2002(2)KarLJ173',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '371660',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/371660/shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The validity and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, is sought to be challenged in this appeal preferred by the appellant-Temple.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Every year during Mahashivarathri Festival, the Temple conducts a jatra which is attended by a large number of persons. During the year 1988 the jatra was scheduled to take place from 11-2-1988 to 19-2-1988. As the gathering in the jatra used to be very large, it necessitated on the part of respondent 3, Mandal Panchayat, to make special arrangements for public health, safety or convenience. The third respondent having tentatively fixed a certain sum held a meeting with the Managing Trustee of the Temple and in the said meeting the probable expenditure likely to be incurred for making arrangements during the jatra was determined as Rs. 37,700/-. The third respondent, thereafter, acting under Section 76 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short) issued notice to the Temple to pay a sum of Rs. 37,700/-. The Temple preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum challenging the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed. In the petition filed before the learned Single Judge the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner were challenged on the ground that the order was notmade in accordance with the Rules. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as without merit. Hence, the present appeal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. We have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner are challenged on the ground that they did not conform with the Rules framed under the Act. The appellant does not dispute the fact that the Deputy Commissioner has the authority under the Act to make an assessment of the probable expenditure that the Mandal Panchayat may have to incur for holding of the jatra. Rule 3 of the Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 stipulates the manner in which the assessment that precedes the issue of notice under Section 76 of the Act, has to be made. The said rule reads:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>'Manner of determination of contribution.--(1) The Deputy Commissioner may, before determining the contributions under Section 76, call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered, in the places referred to in Sub-section (1) of the said section.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(2) The Deputy Commissioner may, after consulting the trustee or other person having control over such place and having regard to the report called for under Sub-rule (1), determine the quantum of recurring or non-recurring contribution required to be made to the funds of the Mandal Panchayat under Section 76'.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>Sub-rule (1) mandates the calling of report by the Deputy Commissioner from the Mandal Panchayat concerned before determining the contribution recoverable under Section 76 of the Act. Under Sub-rule (2) the Deputy Commissioner has to consult the trustee or any other person having control over such place before making the determination.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law. Sub-rule (1) requires the Deputy Commissioner to, 'call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered.....'. The expenditure had to be necessarily incurred by the Mandal Panchayat much prior to the actual event as the arrangements to be made are more in the nature of preventive measures to be taken for safeguarding public health, safety etc. The arrangements to be made would be more in the nature of preventing communicable diseases, providing for the security of the people thronging the jatra, making arrangement for the movement of the public etc. Therefore, the contention that the Mandal Panchayat could have had an idea of the probable expenditure only after the completion of the jatra is without substance.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>It is also not the case of the appellant that no such report as envisaged under Sub-rule (1) was called for by the Deputy Commissioner.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. The Deputy Commissioner having had consultations under sub-rule (2) of the Rules with the Managing Trustee had, in fact, scaled down the estimation made and fixed the contribution payable by the Temple at Rs. 37,700/-. Such determination being quite in accordance with the Rules, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>7. In our considered opinion, there is no ground much less a valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. In the result, for the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

'Manner of determination of contribution.--(1) The Deputy Commissioner may, before determining the contributions under Section 76, call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered, in the places referred to in Sub-section (1) of the said section.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev Gokarna Vs the Divisional Commissioner Belgaum Division Belgaum and ors - Citation 371660 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '371660',
			'acts' => 'Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 - Sections 76; Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 - Rule 3 and 3(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 330 of 1999',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna Vs. the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 38, Rule 5: [A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J] Attachment before judgment  Suit for specific performance of agreement  I.As for grant of interim injunctions and attachment before judgment  Held,  Unless the plaintiff establishes that the defendant is attempting to remove or dispose of his assets, with an intention to defeat the decree that may be passed against him, the application under Order 38, Rule 5 cannot be allowed. On facts, held, Trial Court has not recorded in its order that the first defendant is likely to dispose of the schedule property with the intention of defeating the decree that may be passed in the suit. The trial court has ignored the mandatory requirements of Order 38, Rule 5 while passing the impugned order. Hence, plaintiff has not made out any case to exercise power/jurisdiction under Order 38, Rule 5 by the Trial Court. Impugned order was quashed.  -  5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'T.A. Karumbaiah, Adv. for ;T.S. Ramachandra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Srinivasa Gowda and ;S.R. Hudlamane, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-09-06',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The validity and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, is sought to be challenged in this appeal preferred by the appellant-Temple.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Every year during Mahashivarathri Festival, the Temple conducts a jatra which is attended by a large number of persons. During the year 1988 the jatra was scheduled to take place from 11-2-1988 to 19-2-1988. As the gathering in the jatra used to be very large, it necessitated on the part of respondent 3, Mandal Panchayat, to make special arrangements for public health, safety or convenience. The third respondent having tentatively fixed a certain sum held a meeting with the Managing Trustee of the Temple and in the said meeting the probable expenditure likely to be incurred for making arrangements during the jatra was determined as Rs. 37,700/-. The third respondent, thereafter, acting under Section 76 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short) issued notice to the Temple to pay a sum of Rs. 37,700/-. The Temple preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum challenging the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed. In the petition filed before the learned Single Judge the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner were challenged on the ground that the order was notmade in accordance with the Rules. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as without merit. Hence, the present appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. We have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner are challenged on the ground that they did not conform with the Rules framed under the Act. The appellant does not dispute the fact that the Deputy Commissioner has the authority under the Act to make an assessment of the probable expenditure that the Mandal Panchayat may have to incur for holding of the jatra. Rule 3 of the Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 stipulates the manner in which the assessment that precedes the issue of notice under Section 76 of the Act, has to be made. The said rule reads:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Manner of determination of contribution.--(1) The Deputy Commissioner may, before determining the contributions under Section 76, call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered, in the places referred to in Sub-section (1) of the said section.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Deputy Commissioner may, after consulting the trustee or other person having control over such place and having regard to the report called for under Sub-rule (1), determine the quantum of recurring or non-recurring contribution required to be made to the funds of the Mandal Panchayat under Section 76'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sub-rule (1) mandates the calling of report by the Deputy Commissioner from the Mandal Panchayat concerned before determining the contribution recoverable under Section 76 of the Act. Under Sub-rule (2) the Deputy Commissioner has to consult the trustee or any other person having control over such place before making the determination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law. Sub-rule (1) requires the Deputy Commissioner to, 'call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered.....'. The expenditure had to be necessarily incurred by the Mandal Panchayat much prior to the actual event as the arrangements to be made are more in the nature of preventive measures to be taken for safeguarding public health, safety etc. The arrangements to be made would be more in the nature of preventing communicable diseases, providing for the security of the people thronging the jatra, making arrangement for the movement of the public etc. Therefore, the contention that the Mandal Panchayat could have had an idea of the probable expenditure only after the completion of the jatra is without substance.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is also not the case of the appellant that no such report as envisaged under Sub-rule (1) was called for by the Deputy Commissioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The Deputy Commissioner having had consultations under sub-rule (2) of the Rules with the Managing Trustee had, in fact, scaled down the estimation made and fixed the contribution payable by the Temple at Rs. 37,700/-. Such determination being quite in accordance with the Rules, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In our considered opinion, there is no ground much less a valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In the result, for the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'ILR2002KAR2296; 2002(2)KarLJ173',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '371660',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev Gokarna Vs the Divisional Commissioner Belgaum Division Belgaum and ors - Citation 371660 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '371660',
		'acts' => 'Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 - Sections 76; Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 - Rule 3 and 3(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 330 of 1999',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna Vs. the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 38, Rule 5: [A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J] Attachment before judgment  Suit for specific performance of agreement  I.As for grant of interim injunctions and attachment before judgment  Held,  Unless the plaintiff establishes that the defendant is attempting to remove or dispose of his assets, with an intention to defeat the decree that may be passed against him, the application under Order 38, Rule 5 cannot be allowed. On facts, held, Trial Court has not recorded in its order that the first defendant is likely to dispose of the schedule property with the intention of defeating the decree that may be passed in the suit. The trial court has ignored the mandatory requirements of Order 38, Rule 5 while passing the impugned order. Hence, plaintiff has not made out any case to exercise power/jurisdiction under Order 38, Rule 5 by the Trial Court. Impugned order was quashed.  -  5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'T.A. Karumbaiah, Adv. for ;T.S. Ramachandra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Srinivasa Gowda and ;S.R. Hudlamane, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-09-06',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.</p><p>1. The validity and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, is sought to be challenged in this appeal preferred by the appellant-Temple.</p><p>2. Every year during Mahashivarathri Festival, the Temple conducts a jatra which is attended by a large number of persons. During the year 1988 the jatra was scheduled to take place from 11-2-1988 to 19-2-1988. As the gathering in the jatra used to be very large, it necessitated on the part of respondent 3, Mandal Panchayat, to make special arrangements for public health, safety or convenience. The third respondent having tentatively fixed a certain sum held a meeting with the Managing Trustee of the Temple and in the said meeting the probable expenditure likely to be incurred for making arrangements during the jatra was determined as Rs. 37,700/-. The third respondent, thereafter, acting under Section 76 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short) issued notice to the Temple to pay a sum of Rs. 37,700/-. The Temple preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum challenging the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed. In the petition filed before the learned Single Judge the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner were challenged on the ground that the order was notmade in accordance with the Rules. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as without merit. Hence, the present appeal.</p><p>3. We have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.</p><p>4. The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner are challenged on the ground that they did not conform with the Rules framed under the Act. The appellant does not dispute the fact that the Deputy Commissioner has the authority under the Act to make an assessment of the probable expenditure that the Mandal Panchayat may have to incur for holding of the jatra. Rule 3 of the Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 stipulates the manner in which the assessment that precedes the issue of notice under Section 76 of the Act, has to be made. The said rule reads:</p><p>'Manner of determination of contribution.--(1) The Deputy Commissioner may, before determining the contributions under Section 76, call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered, in the places referred to in Sub-section (1) of the said section.</p><p>(2) The Deputy Commissioner may, after consulting the trustee or other person having control over such place and having regard to the report called for under Sub-rule (1), determine the quantum of recurring or non-recurring contribution required to be made to the funds of the Mandal Panchayat under Section 76'.</p><p>Sub-rule (1) mandates the calling of report by the Deputy Commissioner from the Mandal Panchayat concerned before determining the contribution recoverable under Section 76 of the Act. Under Sub-rule (2) the Deputy Commissioner has to consult the trustee or any other person having control over such place before making the determination.</p><p>5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law. Sub-rule (1) requires the Deputy Commissioner to, 'call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered.....'. The expenditure had to be necessarily incurred by the Mandal Panchayat much prior to the actual event as the arrangements to be made are more in the nature of preventive measures to be taken for safeguarding public health, safety etc. The arrangements to be made would be more in the nature of preventing communicable diseases, providing for the security of the people thronging the jatra, making arrangement for the movement of the public etc. Therefore, the contention that the Mandal Panchayat could have had an idea of the probable expenditure only after the completion of the jatra is without substance.</p><p>It is also not the case of the appellant that no such report as envisaged under Sub-rule (1) was called for by the Deputy Commissioner.</p><p>6. The Deputy Commissioner having had consultations under sub-rule (2) of the Rules with the Managing Trustee had, in fact, scaled down the estimation made and fixed the contribution payable by the Temple at Rs. 37,700/-. Such determination being quite in accordance with the Rules, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition.</p><p>7. In our considered opinion, there is no ground much less a valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.</p><p>8. In the result, for the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'ILR2002KAR2296; 2002(2)KarLJ173',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '371660',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/371660/shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The validity and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, is sought to be challenged in this appeal preferred by the appellant-Temple.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Every year during Mahashivarathri Festival, the Temple conducts a jatra which is attended by a large number of persons. During the year 1988 the jatra was scheduled to take place from 11-2-1988 to 19-2-1988. As the gathering in the jatra used to be very large, it necessitated on the part of respondent 3, Mandal Panchayat, to make special arrangements for public health, safety or convenience. The third respondent having tentatively fixed a certain sum held a meeting with the Managing Trustee of the Temple and in the said meeting the probable expenditure likely to be incurred for making arrangements during the jatra was determined as Rs. 37,700/-. The third respondent, thereafter, acting under Section 76 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short) issued notice to the Temple to pay a sum of Rs. 37,700/-. The Temple preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum challenging the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed. In the petition filed before the learned Single Judge the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner were challenged on the ground that the order was notmade in accordance with the Rules. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as without merit. Hence, the present appeal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. We have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner are challenged on the ground that they did not conform with the Rules framed under the Act. The appellant does not dispute the fact that the Deputy Commissioner has the authority under the Act to make an assessment of the probable expenditure that the Mandal Panchayat may have to incur for holding of the jatra. Rule 3 of the Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 stipulates the manner in which the assessment that precedes the issue of notice under Section 76 of the Act, has to be made. The said rule reads:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>'Manner of determination of contribution.--(1) The Deputy Commissioner may, before determining the contributions under Section 76, call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered, in the places referred to in Sub-section (1) of the said section.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(2) The Deputy Commissioner may, after consulting the trustee or other person having control over such place and having regard to the report called for under Sub-rule (1), determine the quantum of recurring or non-recurring contribution required to be made to the funds of the Mandal Panchayat under Section 76'.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>Sub-rule (1) mandates the calling of report by the Deputy Commissioner from the Mandal Panchayat concerned before determining the contribution recoverable under Section 76 of the Act. Under Sub-rule (2) the Deputy Commissioner has to consult the trustee or any other person having control over such place before making the determination.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law. Sub-rule (1) requires the Deputy Commissioner to, 'call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered.....'. The expenditure had to be necessarily incurred by the Mandal Panchayat much prior to the actual event as the arrangements to be made are more in the nature of preventive measures to be taken for safeguarding public health, safety etc. The arrangements to be made would be more in the nature of preventing communicable diseases, providing for the security of the people thronging the jatra, making arrangement for the movement of the public etc. Therefore, the contention that the Mandal Panchayat could have had an idea of the probable expenditure only after the completion of the jatra is without substance.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>It is also not the case of the appellant that no such report as envisaged under Sub-rule (1) was called for by the Deputy Commissioner.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. The Deputy Commissioner having had consultations under sub-rule (2) of the Rules with the Managing Trustee had, in fact, scaled down the estimation made and fixed the contribution payable by the Temple at Rs. 37,700/-. Such determination being quite in accordance with the Rules, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>7. In our considered opinion, there is no ground much less a valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. In the result, for the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(2) The Deputy Commissioner may, after consulting the trustee or other person having control over such place and having regard to the report called for under Sub-rule (1), determine the quantum of recurring or non-recurring contribution required to be made to the funds of the Mandal Panchayat under Section 76'.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev Gokarna Vs the Divisional Commissioner Belgaum Division Belgaum and ors - Citation 371660 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '371660',
			'acts' => 'Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 - Sections 76; Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 - Rule 3 and 3(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 330 of 1999',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna Vs. the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 38, Rule 5: [A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J] Attachment before judgment  Suit for specific performance of agreement  I.As for grant of interim injunctions and attachment before judgment  Held,  Unless the plaintiff establishes that the defendant is attempting to remove or dispose of his assets, with an intention to defeat the decree that may be passed against him, the application under Order 38, Rule 5 cannot be allowed. On facts, held, Trial Court has not recorded in its order that the first defendant is likely to dispose of the schedule property with the intention of defeating the decree that may be passed in the suit. The trial court has ignored the mandatory requirements of Order 38, Rule 5 while passing the impugned order. Hence, plaintiff has not made out any case to exercise power/jurisdiction under Order 38, Rule 5 by the Trial Court. Impugned order was quashed.  -  5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'T.A. Karumbaiah, Adv. for ;T.S. Ramachandra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Srinivasa Gowda and ;S.R. Hudlamane, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-09-06',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The validity and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, is sought to be challenged in this appeal preferred by the appellant-Temple.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Every year during Mahashivarathri Festival, the Temple conducts a jatra which is attended by a large number of persons. During the year 1988 the jatra was scheduled to take place from 11-2-1988 to 19-2-1988. As the gathering in the jatra used to be very large, it necessitated on the part of respondent 3, Mandal Panchayat, to make special arrangements for public health, safety or convenience. The third respondent having tentatively fixed a certain sum held a meeting with the Managing Trustee of the Temple and in the said meeting the probable expenditure likely to be incurred for making arrangements during the jatra was determined as Rs. 37,700/-. The third respondent, thereafter, acting under Section 76 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short) issued notice to the Temple to pay a sum of Rs. 37,700/-. The Temple preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum challenging the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed. In the petition filed before the learned Single Judge the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner were challenged on the ground that the order was notmade in accordance with the Rules. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as without merit. Hence, the present appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. We have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner are challenged on the ground that they did not conform with the Rules framed under the Act. The appellant does not dispute the fact that the Deputy Commissioner has the authority under the Act to make an assessment of the probable expenditure that the Mandal Panchayat may have to incur for holding of the jatra. Rule 3 of the Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 stipulates the manner in which the assessment that precedes the issue of notice under Section 76 of the Act, has to be made. The said rule reads:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Manner of determination of contribution.--(1) The Deputy Commissioner may, before determining the contributions under Section 76, call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered, in the places referred to in Sub-section (1) of the said section.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Deputy Commissioner may, after consulting the trustee or other person having control over such place and having regard to the report called for under Sub-rule (1), determine the quantum of recurring or non-recurring contribution required to be made to the funds of the Mandal Panchayat under Section 76'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sub-rule (1) mandates the calling of report by the Deputy Commissioner from the Mandal Panchayat concerned before determining the contribution recoverable under Section 76 of the Act. Under Sub-rule (2) the Deputy Commissioner has to consult the trustee or any other person having control over such place before making the determination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law. Sub-rule (1) requires the Deputy Commissioner to, 'call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered.....'. The expenditure had to be necessarily incurred by the Mandal Panchayat much prior to the actual event as the arrangements to be made are more in the nature of preventive measures to be taken for safeguarding public health, safety etc. The arrangements to be made would be more in the nature of preventing communicable diseases, providing for the security of the people thronging the jatra, making arrangement for the movement of the public etc. Therefore, the contention that the Mandal Panchayat could have had an idea of the probable expenditure only after the completion of the jatra is without substance.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is also not the case of the appellant that no such report as envisaged under Sub-rule (1) was called for by the Deputy Commissioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The Deputy Commissioner having had consultations under sub-rule (2) of the Rules with the Managing Trustee had, in fact, scaled down the estimation made and fixed the contribution payable by the Temple at Rs. 37,700/-. Such determination being quite in accordance with the Rules, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In our considered opinion, there is no ground much less a valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In the result, for the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'ILR2002KAR2296; 2002(2)KarLJ173',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '371660',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev Gokarna Vs the Divisional Commissioner Belgaum Division Belgaum and ors - Citation 371660 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '371660',
		'acts' => 'Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 - Sections 76; Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 - Rule 3 and 3(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 330 of 1999',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna Vs. the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 38, Rule 5: [A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J] Attachment before judgment  Suit for specific performance of agreement  I.As for grant of interim injunctions and attachment before judgment  Held,  Unless the plaintiff establishes that the defendant is attempting to remove or dispose of his assets, with an intention to defeat the decree that may be passed against him, the application under Order 38, Rule 5 cannot be allowed. On facts, held, Trial Court has not recorded in its order that the first defendant is likely to dispose of the schedule property with the intention of defeating the decree that may be passed in the suit. The trial court has ignored the mandatory requirements of Order 38, Rule 5 while passing the impugned order. Hence, plaintiff has not made out any case to exercise power/jurisdiction under Order 38, Rule 5 by the Trial Court. Impugned order was quashed.  -  5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'T.A. Karumbaiah, Adv. for ;T.S. Ramachandra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Srinivasa Gowda and ;S.R. Hudlamane, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-09-06',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.</p><p>1. The validity and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, is sought to be challenged in this appeal preferred by the appellant-Temple.</p><p>2. Every year during Mahashivarathri Festival, the Temple conducts a jatra which is attended by a large number of persons. During the year 1988 the jatra was scheduled to take place from 11-2-1988 to 19-2-1988. As the gathering in the jatra used to be very large, it necessitated on the part of respondent 3, Mandal Panchayat, to make special arrangements for public health, safety or convenience. The third respondent having tentatively fixed a certain sum held a meeting with the Managing Trustee of the Temple and in the said meeting the probable expenditure likely to be incurred for making arrangements during the jatra was determined as Rs. 37,700/-. The third respondent, thereafter, acting under Section 76 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short) issued notice to the Temple to pay a sum of Rs. 37,700/-. The Temple preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum challenging the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed. In the petition filed before the learned Single Judge the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner were challenged on the ground that the order was notmade in accordance with the Rules. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as without merit. Hence, the present appeal.</p><p>3. We have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.</p><p>4. The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner are challenged on the ground that they did not conform with the Rules framed under the Act. The appellant does not dispute the fact that the Deputy Commissioner has the authority under the Act to make an assessment of the probable expenditure that the Mandal Panchayat may have to incur for holding of the jatra. Rule 3 of the Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 stipulates the manner in which the assessment that precedes the issue of notice under Section 76 of the Act, has to be made. The said rule reads:</p><p>'Manner of determination of contribution.--(1) The Deputy Commissioner may, before determining the contributions under Section 76, call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered, in the places referred to in Sub-section (1) of the said section.</p><p>(2) The Deputy Commissioner may, after consulting the trustee or other person having control over such place and having regard to the report called for under Sub-rule (1), determine the quantum of recurring or non-recurring contribution required to be made to the funds of the Mandal Panchayat under Section 76'.</p><p>Sub-rule (1) mandates the calling of report by the Deputy Commissioner from the Mandal Panchayat concerned before determining the contribution recoverable under Section 76 of the Act. Under Sub-rule (2) the Deputy Commissioner has to consult the trustee or any other person having control over such place before making the determination.</p><p>5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law. Sub-rule (1) requires the Deputy Commissioner to, 'call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered.....'. The expenditure had to be necessarily incurred by the Mandal Panchayat much prior to the actual event as the arrangements to be made are more in the nature of preventive measures to be taken for safeguarding public health, safety etc. The arrangements to be made would be more in the nature of preventing communicable diseases, providing for the security of the people thronging the jatra, making arrangement for the movement of the public etc. Therefore, the contention that the Mandal Panchayat could have had an idea of the probable expenditure only after the completion of the jatra is without substance.</p><p>It is also not the case of the appellant that no such report as envisaged under Sub-rule (1) was called for by the Deputy Commissioner.</p><p>6. The Deputy Commissioner having had consultations under sub-rule (2) of the Rules with the Managing Trustee had, in fact, scaled down the estimation made and fixed the contribution payable by the Temple at Rs. 37,700/-. Such determination being quite in accordance with the Rules, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition.</p><p>7. In our considered opinion, there is no ground much less a valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.</p><p>8. In the result, for the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'ILR2002KAR2296; 2002(2)KarLJ173',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '371660',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/371660/shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The validity and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, is sought to be challenged in this appeal preferred by the appellant-Temple.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Every year during Mahashivarathri Festival, the Temple conducts a jatra which is attended by a large number of persons. During the year 1988 the jatra was scheduled to take place from 11-2-1988 to 19-2-1988. As the gathering in the jatra used to be very large, it necessitated on the part of respondent 3, Mandal Panchayat, to make special arrangements for public health, safety or convenience. The third respondent having tentatively fixed a certain sum held a meeting with the Managing Trustee of the Temple and in the said meeting the probable expenditure likely to be incurred for making arrangements during the jatra was determined as Rs. 37,700/-. The third respondent, thereafter, acting under Section 76 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short) issued notice to the Temple to pay a sum of Rs. 37,700/-. The Temple preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum challenging the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed. In the petition filed before the learned Single Judge the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner were challenged on the ground that the order was notmade in accordance with the Rules. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as without merit. Hence, the present appeal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. We have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner are challenged on the ground that they did not conform with the Rules framed under the Act. The appellant does not dispute the fact that the Deputy Commissioner has the authority under the Act to make an assessment of the probable expenditure that the Mandal Panchayat may have to incur for holding of the jatra. Rule 3 of the Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 stipulates the manner in which the assessment that precedes the issue of notice under Section 76 of the Act, has to be made. The said rule reads:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>'Manner of determination of contribution.--(1) The Deputy Commissioner may, before determining the contributions under Section 76, call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered, in the places referred to in Sub-section (1) of the said section.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(2) The Deputy Commissioner may, after consulting the trustee or other person having control over such place and having regard to the report called for under Sub-rule (1), determine the quantum of recurring or non-recurring contribution required to be made to the funds of the Mandal Panchayat under Section 76'.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>Sub-rule (1) mandates the calling of report by the Deputy Commissioner from the Mandal Panchayat concerned before determining the contribution recoverable under Section 76 of the Act. Under Sub-rule (2) the Deputy Commissioner has to consult the trustee or any other person having control over such place before making the determination.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law. Sub-rule (1) requires the Deputy Commissioner to, 'call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered.....'. The expenditure had to be necessarily incurred by the Mandal Panchayat much prior to the actual event as the arrangements to be made are more in the nature of preventive measures to be taken for safeguarding public health, safety etc. The arrangements to be made would be more in the nature of preventing communicable diseases, providing for the security of the people thronging the jatra, making arrangement for the movement of the public etc. Therefore, the contention that the Mandal Panchayat could have had an idea of the probable expenditure only after the completion of the jatra is without substance.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>It is also not the case of the appellant that no such report as envisaged under Sub-rule (1) was called for by the Deputy Commissioner.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. The Deputy Commissioner having had consultations under sub-rule (2) of the Rules with the Managing Trustee had, in fact, scaled down the estimation made and fixed the contribution payable by the Temple at Rs. 37,700/-. Such determination being quite in accordance with the Rules, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>7. In our considered opinion, there is no ground much less a valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. In the result, for the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Sub-rule (1) mandates the calling of report by the Deputy Commissioner from the Mandal Panchayat concerned before determining the contribution recoverable under Section 76 of the Act. Under Sub-rule (2) the Deputy Commissioner has to consult the trustee or any other person having control over such place before making the determination.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev Gokarna Vs the Divisional Commissioner Belgaum Division Belgaum and ors - Citation 371660 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '371660',
			'acts' => 'Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 - Sections 76; Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 - Rule 3 and 3(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 330 of 1999',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna Vs. the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 38, Rule 5: [A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J] Attachment before judgment  Suit for specific performance of agreement  I.As for grant of interim injunctions and attachment before judgment  Held,  Unless the plaintiff establishes that the defendant is attempting to remove or dispose of his assets, with an intention to defeat the decree that may be passed against him, the application under Order 38, Rule 5 cannot be allowed. On facts, held, Trial Court has not recorded in its order that the first defendant is likely to dispose of the schedule property with the intention of defeating the decree that may be passed in the suit. The trial court has ignored the mandatory requirements of Order 38, Rule 5 while passing the impugned order. Hence, plaintiff has not made out any case to exercise power/jurisdiction under Order 38, Rule 5 by the Trial Court. Impugned order was quashed.  -  5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'T.A. Karumbaiah, Adv. for ;T.S. Ramachandra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Srinivasa Gowda and ;S.R. Hudlamane, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-09-06',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The validity and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, is sought to be challenged in this appeal preferred by the appellant-Temple.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Every year during Mahashivarathri Festival, the Temple conducts a jatra which is attended by a large number of persons. During the year 1988 the jatra was scheduled to take place from 11-2-1988 to 19-2-1988. As the gathering in the jatra used to be very large, it necessitated on the part of respondent 3, Mandal Panchayat, to make special arrangements for public health, safety or convenience. The third respondent having tentatively fixed a certain sum held a meeting with the Managing Trustee of the Temple and in the said meeting the probable expenditure likely to be incurred for making arrangements during the jatra was determined as Rs. 37,700/-. The third respondent, thereafter, acting under Section 76 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short) issued notice to the Temple to pay a sum of Rs. 37,700/-. The Temple preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum challenging the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed. In the petition filed before the learned Single Judge the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner were challenged on the ground that the order was notmade in accordance with the Rules. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as without merit. Hence, the present appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. We have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner are challenged on the ground that they did not conform with the Rules framed under the Act. The appellant does not dispute the fact that the Deputy Commissioner has the authority under the Act to make an assessment of the probable expenditure that the Mandal Panchayat may have to incur for holding of the jatra. Rule 3 of the Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 stipulates the manner in which the assessment that precedes the issue of notice under Section 76 of the Act, has to be made. The said rule reads:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Manner of determination of contribution.--(1) The Deputy Commissioner may, before determining the contributions under Section 76, call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered, in the places referred to in Sub-section (1) of the said section.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Deputy Commissioner may, after consulting the trustee or other person having control over such place and having regard to the report called for under Sub-rule (1), determine the quantum of recurring or non-recurring contribution required to be made to the funds of the Mandal Panchayat under Section 76'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sub-rule (1) mandates the calling of report by the Deputy Commissioner from the Mandal Panchayat concerned before determining the contribution recoverable under Section 76 of the Act. Under Sub-rule (2) the Deputy Commissioner has to consult the trustee or any other person having control over such place before making the determination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law. Sub-rule (1) requires the Deputy Commissioner to, 'call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered.....'. The expenditure had to be necessarily incurred by the Mandal Panchayat much prior to the actual event as the arrangements to be made are more in the nature of preventive measures to be taken for safeguarding public health, safety etc. The arrangements to be made would be more in the nature of preventing communicable diseases, providing for the security of the people thronging the jatra, making arrangement for the movement of the public etc. Therefore, the contention that the Mandal Panchayat could have had an idea of the probable expenditure only after the completion of the jatra is without substance.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is also not the case of the appellant that no such report as envisaged under Sub-rule (1) was called for by the Deputy Commissioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The Deputy Commissioner having had consultations under sub-rule (2) of the Rules with the Managing Trustee had, in fact, scaled down the estimation made and fixed the contribution payable by the Temple at Rs. 37,700/-. Such determination being quite in accordance with the Rules, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In our considered opinion, there is no ground much less a valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In the result, for the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'ILR2002KAR2296; 2002(2)KarLJ173',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '371660',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev Gokarna Vs the Divisional Commissioner Belgaum Division Belgaum and ors - Citation 371660 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '371660',
		'acts' => 'Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 - Sections 76; Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 - Rule 3 and 3(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 330 of 1999',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna Vs. the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 38, Rule 5: [A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J] Attachment before judgment  Suit for specific performance of agreement  I.As for grant of interim injunctions and attachment before judgment  Held,  Unless the plaintiff establishes that the defendant is attempting to remove or dispose of his assets, with an intention to defeat the decree that may be passed against him, the application under Order 38, Rule 5 cannot be allowed. On facts, held, Trial Court has not recorded in its order that the first defendant is likely to dispose of the schedule property with the intention of defeating the decree that may be passed in the suit. The trial court has ignored the mandatory requirements of Order 38, Rule 5 while passing the impugned order. Hence, plaintiff has not made out any case to exercise power/jurisdiction under Order 38, Rule 5 by the Trial Court. Impugned order was quashed.  -  5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'T.A. Karumbaiah, Adv. for ;T.S. Ramachandra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Srinivasa Gowda and ;S.R. Hudlamane, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-09-06',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.</p><p>1. The validity and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, is sought to be challenged in this appeal preferred by the appellant-Temple.</p><p>2. Every year during Mahashivarathri Festival, the Temple conducts a jatra which is attended by a large number of persons. During the year 1988 the jatra was scheduled to take place from 11-2-1988 to 19-2-1988. As the gathering in the jatra used to be very large, it necessitated on the part of respondent 3, Mandal Panchayat, to make special arrangements for public health, safety or convenience. The third respondent having tentatively fixed a certain sum held a meeting with the Managing Trustee of the Temple and in the said meeting the probable expenditure likely to be incurred for making arrangements during the jatra was determined as Rs. 37,700/-. The third respondent, thereafter, acting under Section 76 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short) issued notice to the Temple to pay a sum of Rs. 37,700/-. The Temple preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum challenging the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed. In the petition filed before the learned Single Judge the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner were challenged on the ground that the order was notmade in accordance with the Rules. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as without merit. Hence, the present appeal.</p><p>3. We have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.</p><p>4. The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner are challenged on the ground that they did not conform with the Rules framed under the Act. The appellant does not dispute the fact that the Deputy Commissioner has the authority under the Act to make an assessment of the probable expenditure that the Mandal Panchayat may have to incur for holding of the jatra. Rule 3 of the Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 stipulates the manner in which the assessment that precedes the issue of notice under Section 76 of the Act, has to be made. The said rule reads:</p><p>'Manner of determination of contribution.--(1) The Deputy Commissioner may, before determining the contributions under Section 76, call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered, in the places referred to in Sub-section (1) of the said section.</p><p>(2) The Deputy Commissioner may, after consulting the trustee or other person having control over such place and having regard to the report called for under Sub-rule (1), determine the quantum of recurring or non-recurring contribution required to be made to the funds of the Mandal Panchayat under Section 76'.</p><p>Sub-rule (1) mandates the calling of report by the Deputy Commissioner from the Mandal Panchayat concerned before determining the contribution recoverable under Section 76 of the Act. Under Sub-rule (2) the Deputy Commissioner has to consult the trustee or any other person having control over such place before making the determination.</p><p>5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law. Sub-rule (1) requires the Deputy Commissioner to, 'call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered.....'. The expenditure had to be necessarily incurred by the Mandal Panchayat much prior to the actual event as the arrangements to be made are more in the nature of preventive measures to be taken for safeguarding public health, safety etc. The arrangements to be made would be more in the nature of preventing communicable diseases, providing for the security of the people thronging the jatra, making arrangement for the movement of the public etc. Therefore, the contention that the Mandal Panchayat could have had an idea of the probable expenditure only after the completion of the jatra is without substance.</p><p>It is also not the case of the appellant that no such report as envisaged under Sub-rule (1) was called for by the Deputy Commissioner.</p><p>6. The Deputy Commissioner having had consultations under sub-rule (2) of the Rules with the Managing Trustee had, in fact, scaled down the estimation made and fixed the contribution payable by the Temple at Rs. 37,700/-. Such determination being quite in accordance with the Rules, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition.</p><p>7. In our considered opinion, there is no ground much less a valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.</p><p>8. In the result, for the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'ILR2002KAR2296; 2002(2)KarLJ173',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '371660',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/371660/shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The validity and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, is sought to be challenged in this appeal preferred by the appellant-Temple.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Every year during Mahashivarathri Festival, the Temple conducts a jatra which is attended by a large number of persons. During the year 1988 the jatra was scheduled to take place from 11-2-1988 to 19-2-1988. As the gathering in the jatra used to be very large, it necessitated on the part of respondent 3, Mandal Panchayat, to make special arrangements for public health, safety or convenience. The third respondent having tentatively fixed a certain sum held a meeting with the Managing Trustee of the Temple and in the said meeting the probable expenditure likely to be incurred for making arrangements during the jatra was determined as Rs. 37,700/-. The third respondent, thereafter, acting under Section 76 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short) issued notice to the Temple to pay a sum of Rs. 37,700/-. The Temple preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum challenging the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed. In the petition filed before the learned Single Judge the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner were challenged on the ground that the order was notmade in accordance with the Rules. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as without merit. Hence, the present appeal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. We have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner are challenged on the ground that they did not conform with the Rules framed under the Act. The appellant does not dispute the fact that the Deputy Commissioner has the authority under the Act to make an assessment of the probable expenditure that the Mandal Panchayat may have to incur for holding of the jatra. Rule 3 of the Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 stipulates the manner in which the assessment that precedes the issue of notice under Section 76 of the Act, has to be made. The said rule reads:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>'Manner of determination of contribution.--(1) The Deputy Commissioner may, before determining the contributions under Section 76, call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered, in the places referred to in Sub-section (1) of the said section.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(2) The Deputy Commissioner may, after consulting the trustee or other person having control over such place and having regard to the report called for under Sub-rule (1), determine the quantum of recurring or non-recurring contribution required to be made to the funds of the Mandal Panchayat under Section 76'.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>Sub-rule (1) mandates the calling of report by the Deputy Commissioner from the Mandal Panchayat concerned before determining the contribution recoverable under Section 76 of the Act. Under Sub-rule (2) the Deputy Commissioner has to consult the trustee or any other person having control over such place before making the determination.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law. Sub-rule (1) requires the Deputy Commissioner to, 'call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered.....'. The expenditure had to be necessarily incurred by the Mandal Panchayat much prior to the actual event as the arrangements to be made are more in the nature of preventive measures to be taken for safeguarding public health, safety etc. The arrangements to be made would be more in the nature of preventing communicable diseases, providing for the security of the people thronging the jatra, making arrangement for the movement of the public etc. Therefore, the contention that the Mandal Panchayat could have had an idea of the probable expenditure only after the completion of the jatra is without substance.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>It is also not the case of the appellant that no such report as envisaged under Sub-rule (1) was called for by the Deputy Commissioner.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. The Deputy Commissioner having had consultations under sub-rule (2) of the Rules with the Managing Trustee had, in fact, scaled down the estimation made and fixed the contribution payable by the Temple at Rs. 37,700/-. Such determination being quite in accordance with the Rules, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>7. In our considered opinion, there is no ground much less a valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. In the result, for the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law. Sub-rule (1) requires the Deputy Commissioner to, 'call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered.....'. The expenditure had to be necessarily incurred by the Mandal Panchayat much prior to the actual event as the arrangements to be made are more in the nature of preventive measures to be taken for safeguarding public health, safety etc. The arrangements to be made would be more in the nature of preventing communicable diseases, providing for the security of the people thronging the jatra, making arrangement for the movement of the public etc. Therefore, the contention that the Mandal Panchayat could have had an idea of the probable expenditure only after the completion of the jatra is without substance.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev Gokarna Vs the Divisional Commissioner Belgaum Division Belgaum and ors - Citation 371660 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '371660',
			'acts' => 'Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 - Sections 76; Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 - Rule 3 and 3(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 330 of 1999',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna Vs. the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 38, Rule 5: [A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J] Attachment before judgment  Suit for specific performance of agreement  I.As for grant of interim injunctions and attachment before judgment  Held,  Unless the plaintiff establishes that the defendant is attempting to remove or dispose of his assets, with an intention to defeat the decree that may be passed against him, the application under Order 38, Rule 5 cannot be allowed. On facts, held, Trial Court has not recorded in its order that the first defendant is likely to dispose of the schedule property with the intention of defeating the decree that may be passed in the suit. The trial court has ignored the mandatory requirements of Order 38, Rule 5 while passing the impugned order. Hence, plaintiff has not made out any case to exercise power/jurisdiction under Order 38, Rule 5 by the Trial Court. Impugned order was quashed.  -  5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'T.A. Karumbaiah, Adv. for ;T.S. Ramachandra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Srinivasa Gowda and ;S.R. Hudlamane, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-09-06',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The validity and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, is sought to be challenged in this appeal preferred by the appellant-Temple.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Every year during Mahashivarathri Festival, the Temple conducts a jatra which is attended by a large number of persons. During the year 1988 the jatra was scheduled to take place from 11-2-1988 to 19-2-1988. As the gathering in the jatra used to be very large, it necessitated on the part of respondent 3, Mandal Panchayat, to make special arrangements for public health, safety or convenience. The third respondent having tentatively fixed a certain sum held a meeting with the Managing Trustee of the Temple and in the said meeting the probable expenditure likely to be incurred for making arrangements during the jatra was determined as Rs. 37,700/-. The third respondent, thereafter, acting under Section 76 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short) issued notice to the Temple to pay a sum of Rs. 37,700/-. The Temple preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum challenging the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed. In the petition filed before the learned Single Judge the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner were challenged on the ground that the order was notmade in accordance with the Rules. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as without merit. Hence, the present appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. We have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner are challenged on the ground that they did not conform with the Rules framed under the Act. The appellant does not dispute the fact that the Deputy Commissioner has the authority under the Act to make an assessment of the probable expenditure that the Mandal Panchayat may have to incur for holding of the jatra. Rule 3 of the Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 stipulates the manner in which the assessment that precedes the issue of notice under Section 76 of the Act, has to be made. The said rule reads:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Manner of determination of contribution.--(1) The Deputy Commissioner may, before determining the contributions under Section 76, call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered, in the places referred to in Sub-section (1) of the said section.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Deputy Commissioner may, after consulting the trustee or other person having control over such place and having regard to the report called for under Sub-rule (1), determine the quantum of recurring or non-recurring contribution required to be made to the funds of the Mandal Panchayat under Section 76'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sub-rule (1) mandates the calling of report by the Deputy Commissioner from the Mandal Panchayat concerned before determining the contribution recoverable under Section 76 of the Act. Under Sub-rule (2) the Deputy Commissioner has to consult the trustee or any other person having control over such place before making the determination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law. Sub-rule (1) requires the Deputy Commissioner to, 'call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered.....'. The expenditure had to be necessarily incurred by the Mandal Panchayat much prior to the actual event as the arrangements to be made are more in the nature of preventive measures to be taken for safeguarding public health, safety etc. The arrangements to be made would be more in the nature of preventing communicable diseases, providing for the security of the people thronging the jatra, making arrangement for the movement of the public etc. Therefore, the contention that the Mandal Panchayat could have had an idea of the probable expenditure only after the completion of the jatra is without substance.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is also not the case of the appellant that no such report as envisaged under Sub-rule (1) was called for by the Deputy Commissioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The Deputy Commissioner having had consultations under sub-rule (2) of the Rules with the Managing Trustee had, in fact, scaled down the estimation made and fixed the contribution payable by the Temple at Rs. 37,700/-. Such determination being quite in accordance with the Rules, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In our considered opinion, there is no ground much less a valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In the result, for the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'ILR2002KAR2296; 2002(2)KarLJ173',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '371660',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev Gokarna Vs the Divisional Commissioner Belgaum Division Belgaum and ors - Citation 371660 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '371660',
		'acts' => 'Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 - Sections 76; Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 - Rule 3 and 3(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 330 of 1999',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna Vs. the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 38, Rule 5: [A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J] Attachment before judgment  Suit for specific performance of agreement  I.As for grant of interim injunctions and attachment before judgment  Held,  Unless the plaintiff establishes that the defendant is attempting to remove or dispose of his assets, with an intention to defeat the decree that may be passed against him, the application under Order 38, Rule 5 cannot be allowed. On facts, held, Trial Court has not recorded in its order that the first defendant is likely to dispose of the schedule property with the intention of defeating the decree that may be passed in the suit. The trial court has ignored the mandatory requirements of Order 38, Rule 5 while passing the impugned order. Hence, plaintiff has not made out any case to exercise power/jurisdiction under Order 38, Rule 5 by the Trial Court. Impugned order was quashed.  -  5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'T.A. Karumbaiah, Adv. for ;T.S. Ramachandra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Srinivasa Gowda and ;S.R. Hudlamane, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-09-06',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.</p><p>1. The validity and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, is sought to be challenged in this appeal preferred by the appellant-Temple.</p><p>2. Every year during Mahashivarathri Festival, the Temple conducts a jatra which is attended by a large number of persons. During the year 1988 the jatra was scheduled to take place from 11-2-1988 to 19-2-1988. As the gathering in the jatra used to be very large, it necessitated on the part of respondent 3, Mandal Panchayat, to make special arrangements for public health, safety or convenience. The third respondent having tentatively fixed a certain sum held a meeting with the Managing Trustee of the Temple and in the said meeting the probable expenditure likely to be incurred for making arrangements during the jatra was determined as Rs. 37,700/-. The third respondent, thereafter, acting under Section 76 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short) issued notice to the Temple to pay a sum of Rs. 37,700/-. The Temple preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum challenging the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed. In the petition filed before the learned Single Judge the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner were challenged on the ground that the order was notmade in accordance with the Rules. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as without merit. Hence, the present appeal.</p><p>3. We have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.</p><p>4. The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner are challenged on the ground that they did not conform with the Rules framed under the Act. The appellant does not dispute the fact that the Deputy Commissioner has the authority under the Act to make an assessment of the probable expenditure that the Mandal Panchayat may have to incur for holding of the jatra. Rule 3 of the Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 stipulates the manner in which the assessment that precedes the issue of notice under Section 76 of the Act, has to be made. The said rule reads:</p><p>'Manner of determination of contribution.--(1) The Deputy Commissioner may, before determining the contributions under Section 76, call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered, in the places referred to in Sub-section (1) of the said section.</p><p>(2) The Deputy Commissioner may, after consulting the trustee or other person having control over such place and having regard to the report called for under Sub-rule (1), determine the quantum of recurring or non-recurring contribution required to be made to the funds of the Mandal Panchayat under Section 76'.</p><p>Sub-rule (1) mandates the calling of report by the Deputy Commissioner from the Mandal Panchayat concerned before determining the contribution recoverable under Section 76 of the Act. Under Sub-rule (2) the Deputy Commissioner has to consult the trustee or any other person having control over such place before making the determination.</p><p>5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law. Sub-rule (1) requires the Deputy Commissioner to, 'call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered.....'. The expenditure had to be necessarily incurred by the Mandal Panchayat much prior to the actual event as the arrangements to be made are more in the nature of preventive measures to be taken for safeguarding public health, safety etc. The arrangements to be made would be more in the nature of preventing communicable diseases, providing for the security of the people thronging the jatra, making arrangement for the movement of the public etc. Therefore, the contention that the Mandal Panchayat could have had an idea of the probable expenditure only after the completion of the jatra is without substance.</p><p>It is also not the case of the appellant that no such report as envisaged under Sub-rule (1) was called for by the Deputy Commissioner.</p><p>6. The Deputy Commissioner having had consultations under sub-rule (2) of the Rules with the Managing Trustee had, in fact, scaled down the estimation made and fixed the contribution payable by the Temple at Rs. 37,700/-. Such determination being quite in accordance with the Rules, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition.</p><p>7. In our considered opinion, there is no ground much less a valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.</p><p>8. In the result, for the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'ILR2002KAR2296; 2002(2)KarLJ173',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '371660',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/371660/shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The validity and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, is sought to be challenged in this appeal preferred by the appellant-Temple.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Every year during Mahashivarathri Festival, the Temple conducts a jatra which is attended by a large number of persons. During the year 1988 the jatra was scheduled to take place from 11-2-1988 to 19-2-1988. As the gathering in the jatra used to be very large, it necessitated on the part of respondent 3, Mandal Panchayat, to make special arrangements for public health, safety or convenience. The third respondent having tentatively fixed a certain sum held a meeting with the Managing Trustee of the Temple and in the said meeting the probable expenditure likely to be incurred for making arrangements during the jatra was determined as Rs. 37,700/-. The third respondent, thereafter, acting under Section 76 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short) issued notice to the Temple to pay a sum of Rs. 37,700/-. The Temple preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum challenging the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed. In the petition filed before the learned Single Judge the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner were challenged on the ground that the order was notmade in accordance with the Rules. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as without merit. Hence, the present appeal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. We have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner are challenged on the ground that they did not conform with the Rules framed under the Act. The appellant does not dispute the fact that the Deputy Commissioner has the authority under the Act to make an assessment of the probable expenditure that the Mandal Panchayat may have to incur for holding of the jatra. Rule 3 of the Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 stipulates the manner in which the assessment that precedes the issue of notice under Section 76 of the Act, has to be made. The said rule reads:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>'Manner of determination of contribution.--(1) The Deputy Commissioner may, before determining the contributions under Section 76, call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered, in the places referred to in Sub-section (1) of the said section.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(2) The Deputy Commissioner may, after consulting the trustee or other person having control over such place and having regard to the report called for under Sub-rule (1), determine the quantum of recurring or non-recurring contribution required to be made to the funds of the Mandal Panchayat under Section 76'.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>Sub-rule (1) mandates the calling of report by the Deputy Commissioner from the Mandal Panchayat concerned before determining the contribution recoverable under Section 76 of the Act. Under Sub-rule (2) the Deputy Commissioner has to consult the trustee or any other person having control over such place before making the determination.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law. Sub-rule (1) requires the Deputy Commissioner to, 'call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered.....'. The expenditure had to be necessarily incurred by the Mandal Panchayat much prior to the actual event as the arrangements to be made are more in the nature of preventive measures to be taken for safeguarding public health, safety etc. The arrangements to be made would be more in the nature of preventing communicable diseases, providing for the security of the people thronging the jatra, making arrangement for the movement of the public etc. Therefore, the contention that the Mandal Panchayat could have had an idea of the probable expenditure only after the completion of the jatra is without substance.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>It is also not the case of the appellant that no such report as envisaged under Sub-rule (1) was called for by the Deputy Commissioner.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. The Deputy Commissioner having had consultations under sub-rule (2) of the Rules with the Managing Trustee had, in fact, scaled down the estimation made and fixed the contribution payable by the Temple at Rs. 37,700/-. Such determination being quite in accordance with the Rules, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>7. In our considered opinion, there is no ground much less a valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. In the result, for the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

It is also not the case of the appellant that no such report as envisaged under Sub-rule (1) was called for by the Deputy Commissioner.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev Gokarna Vs the Divisional Commissioner Belgaum Division Belgaum and ors - Citation 371660 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '371660',
			'acts' => 'Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 - Sections 76; Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 - Rule 3 and 3(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 330 of 1999',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna Vs. the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 38, Rule 5: [A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J] Attachment before judgment  Suit for specific performance of agreement  I.As for grant of interim injunctions and attachment before judgment  Held,  Unless the plaintiff establishes that the defendant is attempting to remove or dispose of his assets, with an intention to defeat the decree that may be passed against him, the application under Order 38, Rule 5 cannot be allowed. On facts, held, Trial Court has not recorded in its order that the first defendant is likely to dispose of the schedule property with the intention of defeating the decree that may be passed in the suit. The trial court has ignored the mandatory requirements of Order 38, Rule 5 while passing the impugned order. Hence, plaintiff has not made out any case to exercise power/jurisdiction under Order 38, Rule 5 by the Trial Court. Impugned order was quashed.  -  5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'T.A. Karumbaiah, Adv. for ;T.S. Ramachandra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Srinivasa Gowda and ;S.R. Hudlamane, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-09-06',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The validity and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, is sought to be challenged in this appeal preferred by the appellant-Temple.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Every year during Mahashivarathri Festival, the Temple conducts a jatra which is attended by a large number of persons. During the year 1988 the jatra was scheduled to take place from 11-2-1988 to 19-2-1988. As the gathering in the jatra used to be very large, it necessitated on the part of respondent 3, Mandal Panchayat, to make special arrangements for public health, safety or convenience. The third respondent having tentatively fixed a certain sum held a meeting with the Managing Trustee of the Temple and in the said meeting the probable expenditure likely to be incurred for making arrangements during the jatra was determined as Rs. 37,700/-. The third respondent, thereafter, acting under Section 76 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short) issued notice to the Temple to pay a sum of Rs. 37,700/-. The Temple preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum challenging the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed. In the petition filed before the learned Single Judge the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner were challenged on the ground that the order was notmade in accordance with the Rules. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as without merit. Hence, the present appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. We have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner are challenged on the ground that they did not conform with the Rules framed under the Act. The appellant does not dispute the fact that the Deputy Commissioner has the authority under the Act to make an assessment of the probable expenditure that the Mandal Panchayat may have to incur for holding of the jatra. Rule 3 of the Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 stipulates the manner in which the assessment that precedes the issue of notice under Section 76 of the Act, has to be made. The said rule reads:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Manner of determination of contribution.--(1) The Deputy Commissioner may, before determining the contributions under Section 76, call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered, in the places referred to in Sub-section (1) of the said section.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Deputy Commissioner may, after consulting the trustee or other person having control over such place and having regard to the report called for under Sub-rule (1), determine the quantum of recurring or non-recurring contribution required to be made to the funds of the Mandal Panchayat under Section 76'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sub-rule (1) mandates the calling of report by the Deputy Commissioner from the Mandal Panchayat concerned before determining the contribution recoverable under Section 76 of the Act. Under Sub-rule (2) the Deputy Commissioner has to consult the trustee or any other person having control over such place before making the determination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law. Sub-rule (1) requires the Deputy Commissioner to, 'call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered.....'. The expenditure had to be necessarily incurred by the Mandal Panchayat much prior to the actual event as the arrangements to be made are more in the nature of preventive measures to be taken for safeguarding public health, safety etc. The arrangements to be made would be more in the nature of preventing communicable diseases, providing for the security of the people thronging the jatra, making arrangement for the movement of the public etc. Therefore, the contention that the Mandal Panchayat could have had an idea of the probable expenditure only after the completion of the jatra is without substance.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is also not the case of the appellant that no such report as envisaged under Sub-rule (1) was called for by the Deputy Commissioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The Deputy Commissioner having had consultations under sub-rule (2) of the Rules with the Managing Trustee had, in fact, scaled down the estimation made and fixed the contribution payable by the Temple at Rs. 37,700/-. Such determination being quite in accordance with the Rules, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In our considered opinion, there is no ground much less a valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In the result, for the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'ILR2002KAR2296; 2002(2)KarLJ173',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '371660',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev Gokarna Vs the Divisional Commissioner Belgaum Division Belgaum and ors - Citation 371660 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '371660',
		'acts' => 'Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 - Sections 76; Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 - Rule 3 and 3(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 330 of 1999',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna Vs. the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 38, Rule 5: [A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J] Attachment before judgment  Suit for specific performance of agreement  I.As for grant of interim injunctions and attachment before judgment  Held,  Unless the plaintiff establishes that the defendant is attempting to remove or dispose of his assets, with an intention to defeat the decree that may be passed against him, the application under Order 38, Rule 5 cannot be allowed. On facts, held, Trial Court has not recorded in its order that the first defendant is likely to dispose of the schedule property with the intention of defeating the decree that may be passed in the suit. The trial court has ignored the mandatory requirements of Order 38, Rule 5 while passing the impugned order. Hence, plaintiff has not made out any case to exercise power/jurisdiction under Order 38, Rule 5 by the Trial Court. Impugned order was quashed.  -  5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'T.A. Karumbaiah, Adv. for ;T.S. Ramachandra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Srinivasa Gowda and ;S.R. Hudlamane, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-09-06',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.</p><p>1. The validity and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, is sought to be challenged in this appeal preferred by the appellant-Temple.</p><p>2. Every year during Mahashivarathri Festival, the Temple conducts a jatra which is attended by a large number of persons. During the year 1988 the jatra was scheduled to take place from 11-2-1988 to 19-2-1988. As the gathering in the jatra used to be very large, it necessitated on the part of respondent 3, Mandal Panchayat, to make special arrangements for public health, safety or convenience. The third respondent having tentatively fixed a certain sum held a meeting with the Managing Trustee of the Temple and in the said meeting the probable expenditure likely to be incurred for making arrangements during the jatra was determined as Rs. 37,700/-. The third respondent, thereafter, acting under Section 76 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short) issued notice to the Temple to pay a sum of Rs. 37,700/-. The Temple preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum challenging the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed. In the petition filed before the learned Single Judge the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner were challenged on the ground that the order was notmade in accordance with the Rules. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as without merit. Hence, the present appeal.</p><p>3. We have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.</p><p>4. The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner are challenged on the ground that they did not conform with the Rules framed under the Act. The appellant does not dispute the fact that the Deputy Commissioner has the authority under the Act to make an assessment of the probable expenditure that the Mandal Panchayat may have to incur for holding of the jatra. Rule 3 of the Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 stipulates the manner in which the assessment that precedes the issue of notice under Section 76 of the Act, has to be made. The said rule reads:</p><p>'Manner of determination of contribution.--(1) The Deputy Commissioner may, before determining the contributions under Section 76, call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered, in the places referred to in Sub-section (1) of the said section.</p><p>(2) The Deputy Commissioner may, after consulting the trustee or other person having control over such place and having regard to the report called for under Sub-rule (1), determine the quantum of recurring or non-recurring contribution required to be made to the funds of the Mandal Panchayat under Section 76'.</p><p>Sub-rule (1) mandates the calling of report by the Deputy Commissioner from the Mandal Panchayat concerned before determining the contribution recoverable under Section 76 of the Act. Under Sub-rule (2) the Deputy Commissioner has to consult the trustee or any other person having control over such place before making the determination.</p><p>5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law. Sub-rule (1) requires the Deputy Commissioner to, 'call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered.....'. The expenditure had to be necessarily incurred by the Mandal Panchayat much prior to the actual event as the arrangements to be made are more in the nature of preventive measures to be taken for safeguarding public health, safety etc. The arrangements to be made would be more in the nature of preventing communicable diseases, providing for the security of the people thronging the jatra, making arrangement for the movement of the public etc. Therefore, the contention that the Mandal Panchayat could have had an idea of the probable expenditure only after the completion of the jatra is without substance.</p><p>It is also not the case of the appellant that no such report as envisaged under Sub-rule (1) was called for by the Deputy Commissioner.</p><p>6. The Deputy Commissioner having had consultations under sub-rule (2) of the Rules with the Managing Trustee had, in fact, scaled down the estimation made and fixed the contribution payable by the Temple at Rs. 37,700/-. Such determination being quite in accordance with the Rules, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition.</p><p>7. In our considered opinion, there is no ground much less a valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.</p><p>8. In the result, for the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'ILR2002KAR2296; 2002(2)KarLJ173',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '371660',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/371660/shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The validity and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, is sought to be challenged in this appeal preferred by the appellant-Temple.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Every year during Mahashivarathri Festival, the Temple conducts a jatra which is attended by a large number of persons. During the year 1988 the jatra was scheduled to take place from 11-2-1988 to 19-2-1988. As the gathering in the jatra used to be very large, it necessitated on the part of respondent 3, Mandal Panchayat, to make special arrangements for public health, safety or convenience. The third respondent having tentatively fixed a certain sum held a meeting with the Managing Trustee of the Temple and in the said meeting the probable expenditure likely to be incurred for making arrangements during the jatra was determined as Rs. 37,700/-. The third respondent, thereafter, acting under Section 76 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short) issued notice to the Temple to pay a sum of Rs. 37,700/-. The Temple preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum challenging the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed. In the petition filed before the learned Single Judge the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner were challenged on the ground that the order was notmade in accordance with the Rules. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as without merit. Hence, the present appeal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. We have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner are challenged on the ground that they did not conform with the Rules framed under the Act. The appellant does not dispute the fact that the Deputy Commissioner has the authority under the Act to make an assessment of the probable expenditure that the Mandal Panchayat may have to incur for holding of the jatra. Rule 3 of the Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 stipulates the manner in which the assessment that precedes the issue of notice under Section 76 of the Act, has to be made. The said rule reads:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>'Manner of determination of contribution.--(1) The Deputy Commissioner may, before determining the contributions under Section 76, call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered, in the places referred to in Sub-section (1) of the said section.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(2) The Deputy Commissioner may, after consulting the trustee or other person having control over such place and having regard to the report called for under Sub-rule (1), determine the quantum of recurring or non-recurring contribution required to be made to the funds of the Mandal Panchayat under Section 76'.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>Sub-rule (1) mandates the calling of report by the Deputy Commissioner from the Mandal Panchayat concerned before determining the contribution recoverable under Section 76 of the Act. Under Sub-rule (2) the Deputy Commissioner has to consult the trustee or any other person having control over such place before making the determination.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law. Sub-rule (1) requires the Deputy Commissioner to, 'call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered.....'. The expenditure had to be necessarily incurred by the Mandal Panchayat much prior to the actual event as the arrangements to be made are more in the nature of preventive measures to be taken for safeguarding public health, safety etc. The arrangements to be made would be more in the nature of preventing communicable diseases, providing for the security of the people thronging the jatra, making arrangement for the movement of the public etc. Therefore, the contention that the Mandal Panchayat could have had an idea of the probable expenditure only after the completion of the jatra is without substance.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>It is also not the case of the appellant that no such report as envisaged under Sub-rule (1) was called for by the Deputy Commissioner.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. The Deputy Commissioner having had consultations under sub-rule (2) of the Rules with the Managing Trustee had, in fact, scaled down the estimation made and fixed the contribution payable by the Temple at Rs. 37,700/-. Such determination being quite in accordance with the Rules, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>7. In our considered opinion, there is no ground much less a valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. In the result, for the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. The Deputy Commissioner having had consultations under sub-rule (2) of the Rules with the Managing Trustee had, in fact, scaled down the estimation made and fixed the contribution payable by the Temple at Rs. 37,700/-. Such determination being quite in accordance with the Rules, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev Gokarna Vs the Divisional Commissioner Belgaum Division Belgaum and ors - Citation 371660 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '371660',
			'acts' => 'Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 - Sections 76; Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 - Rule 3 and 3(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 330 of 1999',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna Vs. the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 38, Rule 5: [A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J] Attachment before judgment  Suit for specific performance of agreement  I.As for grant of interim injunctions and attachment before judgment  Held,  Unless the plaintiff establishes that the defendant is attempting to remove or dispose of his assets, with an intention to defeat the decree that may be passed against him, the application under Order 38, Rule 5 cannot be allowed. On facts, held, Trial Court has not recorded in its order that the first defendant is likely to dispose of the schedule property with the intention of defeating the decree that may be passed in the suit. The trial court has ignored the mandatory requirements of Order 38, Rule 5 while passing the impugned order. Hence, plaintiff has not made out any case to exercise power/jurisdiction under Order 38, Rule 5 by the Trial Court. Impugned order was quashed.  -  5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'T.A. Karumbaiah, Adv. for ;T.S. Ramachandra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Srinivasa Gowda and ;S.R. Hudlamane, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-09-06',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The validity and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, is sought to be challenged in this appeal preferred by the appellant-Temple.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Every year during Mahashivarathri Festival, the Temple conducts a jatra which is attended by a large number of persons. During the year 1988 the jatra was scheduled to take place from 11-2-1988 to 19-2-1988. As the gathering in the jatra used to be very large, it necessitated on the part of respondent 3, Mandal Panchayat, to make special arrangements for public health, safety or convenience. The third respondent having tentatively fixed a certain sum held a meeting with the Managing Trustee of the Temple and in the said meeting the probable expenditure likely to be incurred for making arrangements during the jatra was determined as Rs. 37,700/-. The third respondent, thereafter, acting under Section 76 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short) issued notice to the Temple to pay a sum of Rs. 37,700/-. The Temple preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum challenging the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed. In the petition filed before the learned Single Judge the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner were challenged on the ground that the order was notmade in accordance with the Rules. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as without merit. Hence, the present appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. We have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner are challenged on the ground that they did not conform with the Rules framed under the Act. The appellant does not dispute the fact that the Deputy Commissioner has the authority under the Act to make an assessment of the probable expenditure that the Mandal Panchayat may have to incur for holding of the jatra. Rule 3 of the Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 stipulates the manner in which the assessment that precedes the issue of notice under Section 76 of the Act, has to be made. The said rule reads:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Manner of determination of contribution.--(1) The Deputy Commissioner may, before determining the contributions under Section 76, call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered, in the places referred to in Sub-section (1) of the said section.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Deputy Commissioner may, after consulting the trustee or other person having control over such place and having regard to the report called for under Sub-rule (1), determine the quantum of recurring or non-recurring contribution required to be made to the funds of the Mandal Panchayat under Section 76'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sub-rule (1) mandates the calling of report by the Deputy Commissioner from the Mandal Panchayat concerned before determining the contribution recoverable under Section 76 of the Act. Under Sub-rule (2) the Deputy Commissioner has to consult the trustee or any other person having control over such place before making the determination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law. Sub-rule (1) requires the Deputy Commissioner to, 'call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered.....'. The expenditure had to be necessarily incurred by the Mandal Panchayat much prior to the actual event as the arrangements to be made are more in the nature of preventive measures to be taken for safeguarding public health, safety etc. The arrangements to be made would be more in the nature of preventing communicable diseases, providing for the security of the people thronging the jatra, making arrangement for the movement of the public etc. Therefore, the contention that the Mandal Panchayat could have had an idea of the probable expenditure only after the completion of the jatra is without substance.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is also not the case of the appellant that no such report as envisaged under Sub-rule (1) was called for by the Deputy Commissioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The Deputy Commissioner having had consultations under sub-rule (2) of the Rules with the Managing Trustee had, in fact, scaled down the estimation made and fixed the contribution payable by the Temple at Rs. 37,700/-. Such determination being quite in accordance with the Rules, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In our considered opinion, there is no ground much less a valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In the result, for the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'ILR2002KAR2296; 2002(2)KarLJ173',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '371660',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev Gokarna Vs the Divisional Commissioner Belgaum Division Belgaum and ors - Citation 371660 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '371660',
		'acts' => 'Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 - Sections 76; Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 - Rule 3 and 3(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 330 of 1999',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna Vs. the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 38, Rule 5: [A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J] Attachment before judgment  Suit for specific performance of agreement  I.As for grant of interim injunctions and attachment before judgment  Held,  Unless the plaintiff establishes that the defendant is attempting to remove or dispose of his assets, with an intention to defeat the decree that may be passed against him, the application under Order 38, Rule 5 cannot be allowed. On facts, held, Trial Court has not recorded in its order that the first defendant is likely to dispose of the schedule property with the intention of defeating the decree that may be passed in the suit. The trial court has ignored the mandatory requirements of Order 38, Rule 5 while passing the impugned order. Hence, plaintiff has not made out any case to exercise power/jurisdiction under Order 38, Rule 5 by the Trial Court. Impugned order was quashed.  -  5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'T.A. Karumbaiah, Adv. for ;T.S. Ramachandra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Srinivasa Gowda and ;S.R. Hudlamane, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-09-06',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.</p><p>1. The validity and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, is sought to be challenged in this appeal preferred by the appellant-Temple.</p><p>2. Every year during Mahashivarathri Festival, the Temple conducts a jatra which is attended by a large number of persons. During the year 1988 the jatra was scheduled to take place from 11-2-1988 to 19-2-1988. As the gathering in the jatra used to be very large, it necessitated on the part of respondent 3, Mandal Panchayat, to make special arrangements for public health, safety or convenience. The third respondent having tentatively fixed a certain sum held a meeting with the Managing Trustee of the Temple and in the said meeting the probable expenditure likely to be incurred for making arrangements during the jatra was determined as Rs. 37,700/-. The third respondent, thereafter, acting under Section 76 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short) issued notice to the Temple to pay a sum of Rs. 37,700/-. The Temple preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum challenging the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed. In the petition filed before the learned Single Judge the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner were challenged on the ground that the order was notmade in accordance with the Rules. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as without merit. Hence, the present appeal.</p><p>3. We have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.</p><p>4. The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner are challenged on the ground that they did not conform with the Rules framed under the Act. The appellant does not dispute the fact that the Deputy Commissioner has the authority under the Act to make an assessment of the probable expenditure that the Mandal Panchayat may have to incur for holding of the jatra. Rule 3 of the Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 stipulates the manner in which the assessment that precedes the issue of notice under Section 76 of the Act, has to be made. The said rule reads:</p><p>'Manner of determination of contribution.--(1) The Deputy Commissioner may, before determining the contributions under Section 76, call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered, in the places referred to in Sub-section (1) of the said section.</p><p>(2) The Deputy Commissioner may, after consulting the trustee or other person having control over such place and having regard to the report called for under Sub-rule (1), determine the quantum of recurring or non-recurring contribution required to be made to the funds of the Mandal Panchayat under Section 76'.</p><p>Sub-rule (1) mandates the calling of report by the Deputy Commissioner from the Mandal Panchayat concerned before determining the contribution recoverable under Section 76 of the Act. Under Sub-rule (2) the Deputy Commissioner has to consult the trustee or any other person having control over such place before making the determination.</p><p>5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law. Sub-rule (1) requires the Deputy Commissioner to, 'call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered.....'. The expenditure had to be necessarily incurred by the Mandal Panchayat much prior to the actual event as the arrangements to be made are more in the nature of preventive measures to be taken for safeguarding public health, safety etc. The arrangements to be made would be more in the nature of preventing communicable diseases, providing for the security of the people thronging the jatra, making arrangement for the movement of the public etc. Therefore, the contention that the Mandal Panchayat could have had an idea of the probable expenditure only after the completion of the jatra is without substance.</p><p>It is also not the case of the appellant that no such report as envisaged under Sub-rule (1) was called for by the Deputy Commissioner.</p><p>6. The Deputy Commissioner having had consultations under sub-rule (2) of the Rules with the Managing Trustee had, in fact, scaled down the estimation made and fixed the contribution payable by the Temple at Rs. 37,700/-. Such determination being quite in accordance with the Rules, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition.</p><p>7. In our considered opinion, there is no ground much less a valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.</p><p>8. In the result, for the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'ILR2002KAR2296; 2002(2)KarLJ173',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '371660',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/371660/shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The validity and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, is sought to be challenged in this appeal preferred by the appellant-Temple.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Every year during Mahashivarathri Festival, the Temple conducts a jatra which is attended by a large number of persons. During the year 1988 the jatra was scheduled to take place from 11-2-1988 to 19-2-1988. As the gathering in the jatra used to be very large, it necessitated on the part of respondent 3, Mandal Panchayat, to make special arrangements for public health, safety or convenience. The third respondent having tentatively fixed a certain sum held a meeting with the Managing Trustee of the Temple and in the said meeting the probable expenditure likely to be incurred for making arrangements during the jatra was determined as Rs. 37,700/-. The third respondent, thereafter, acting under Section 76 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short) issued notice to the Temple to pay a sum of Rs. 37,700/-. The Temple preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum challenging the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed. In the petition filed before the learned Single Judge the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner were challenged on the ground that the order was notmade in accordance with the Rules. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as without merit. Hence, the present appeal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. We have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner are challenged on the ground that they did not conform with the Rules framed under the Act. The appellant does not dispute the fact that the Deputy Commissioner has the authority under the Act to make an assessment of the probable expenditure that the Mandal Panchayat may have to incur for holding of the jatra. Rule 3 of the Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 stipulates the manner in which the assessment that precedes the issue of notice under Section 76 of the Act, has to be made. The said rule reads:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>'Manner of determination of contribution.--(1) The Deputy Commissioner may, before determining the contributions under Section 76, call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered, in the places referred to in Sub-section (1) of the said section.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(2) The Deputy Commissioner may, after consulting the trustee or other person having control over such place and having regard to the report called for under Sub-rule (1), determine the quantum of recurring or non-recurring contribution required to be made to the funds of the Mandal Panchayat under Section 76'.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>Sub-rule (1) mandates the calling of report by the Deputy Commissioner from the Mandal Panchayat concerned before determining the contribution recoverable under Section 76 of the Act. Under Sub-rule (2) the Deputy Commissioner has to consult the trustee or any other person having control over such place before making the determination.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law. Sub-rule (1) requires the Deputy Commissioner to, 'call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered.....'. The expenditure had to be necessarily incurred by the Mandal Panchayat much prior to the actual event as the arrangements to be made are more in the nature of preventive measures to be taken for safeguarding public health, safety etc. The arrangements to be made would be more in the nature of preventing communicable diseases, providing for the security of the people thronging the jatra, making arrangement for the movement of the public etc. Therefore, the contention that the Mandal Panchayat could have had an idea of the probable expenditure only after the completion of the jatra is without substance.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>It is also not the case of the appellant that no such report as envisaged under Sub-rule (1) was called for by the Deputy Commissioner.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. The Deputy Commissioner having had consultations under sub-rule (2) of the Rules with the Managing Trustee had, in fact, scaled down the estimation made and fixed the contribution payable by the Temple at Rs. 37,700/-. Such determination being quite in accordance with the Rules, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>7. In our considered opinion, there is no ground much less a valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. In the result, for the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 11
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

7. In our considered opinion, there is no ground much less a valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev Gokarna Vs the Divisional Commissioner Belgaum Division Belgaum and ors - Citation 371660 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '371660',
			'acts' => 'Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 - Sections 76; Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 - Rule 3 and 3(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 330 of 1999',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna Vs. the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 38, Rule 5: [A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J] Attachment before judgment  Suit for specific performance of agreement  I.As for grant of interim injunctions and attachment before judgment  Held,  Unless the plaintiff establishes that the defendant is attempting to remove or dispose of his assets, with an intention to defeat the decree that may be passed against him, the application under Order 38, Rule 5 cannot be allowed. On facts, held, Trial Court has not recorded in its order that the first defendant is likely to dispose of the schedule property with the intention of defeating the decree that may be passed in the suit. The trial court has ignored the mandatory requirements of Order 38, Rule 5 while passing the impugned order. Hence, plaintiff has not made out any case to exercise power/jurisdiction under Order 38, Rule 5 by the Trial Court. Impugned order was quashed.  -  5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'T.A. Karumbaiah, Adv. for ;T.S. Ramachandra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Srinivasa Gowda and ;S.R. Hudlamane, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-09-06',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The validity and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, is sought to be challenged in this appeal preferred by the appellant-Temple.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Every year during Mahashivarathri Festival, the Temple conducts a jatra which is attended by a large number of persons. During the year 1988 the jatra was scheduled to take place from 11-2-1988 to 19-2-1988. As the gathering in the jatra used to be very large, it necessitated on the part of respondent 3, Mandal Panchayat, to make special arrangements for public health, safety or convenience. The third respondent having tentatively fixed a certain sum held a meeting with the Managing Trustee of the Temple and in the said meeting the probable expenditure likely to be incurred for making arrangements during the jatra was determined as Rs. 37,700/-. The third respondent, thereafter, acting under Section 76 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short) issued notice to the Temple to pay a sum of Rs. 37,700/-. The Temple preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum challenging the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed. In the petition filed before the learned Single Judge the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner were challenged on the ground that the order was notmade in accordance with the Rules. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as without merit. Hence, the present appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. We have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner are challenged on the ground that they did not conform with the Rules framed under the Act. The appellant does not dispute the fact that the Deputy Commissioner has the authority under the Act to make an assessment of the probable expenditure that the Mandal Panchayat may have to incur for holding of the jatra. Rule 3 of the Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 stipulates the manner in which the assessment that precedes the issue of notice under Section 76 of the Act, has to be made. The said rule reads:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Manner of determination of contribution.--(1) The Deputy Commissioner may, before determining the contributions under Section 76, call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered, in the places referred to in Sub-section (1) of the said section.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Deputy Commissioner may, after consulting the trustee or other person having control over such place and having regard to the report called for under Sub-rule (1), determine the quantum of recurring or non-recurring contribution required to be made to the funds of the Mandal Panchayat under Section 76'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sub-rule (1) mandates the calling of report by the Deputy Commissioner from the Mandal Panchayat concerned before determining the contribution recoverable under Section 76 of the Act. Under Sub-rule (2) the Deputy Commissioner has to consult the trustee or any other person having control over such place before making the determination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law. Sub-rule (1) requires the Deputy Commissioner to, 'call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered.....'. The expenditure had to be necessarily incurred by the Mandal Panchayat much prior to the actual event as the arrangements to be made are more in the nature of preventive measures to be taken for safeguarding public health, safety etc. The arrangements to be made would be more in the nature of preventing communicable diseases, providing for the security of the people thronging the jatra, making arrangement for the movement of the public etc. Therefore, the contention that the Mandal Panchayat could have had an idea of the probable expenditure only after the completion of the jatra is without substance.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is also not the case of the appellant that no such report as envisaged under Sub-rule (1) was called for by the Deputy Commissioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The Deputy Commissioner having had consultations under sub-rule (2) of the Rules with the Managing Trustee had, in fact, scaled down the estimation made and fixed the contribution payable by the Temple at Rs. 37,700/-. Such determination being quite in accordance with the Rules, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In our considered opinion, there is no ground much less a valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In the result, for the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'ILR2002KAR2296; 2002(2)KarLJ173',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '371660',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev Gokarna Vs the Divisional Commissioner Belgaum Division Belgaum and ors - Citation 371660 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '371660',
		'acts' => 'Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 - Sections 76; Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 - Rule 3 and 3(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 330 of 1999',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna Vs. the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 38, Rule 5: [A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J] Attachment before judgment  Suit for specific performance of agreement  I.As for grant of interim injunctions and attachment before judgment  Held,  Unless the plaintiff establishes that the defendant is attempting to remove or dispose of his assets, with an intention to defeat the decree that may be passed against him, the application under Order 38, Rule 5 cannot be allowed. On facts, held, Trial Court has not recorded in its order that the first defendant is likely to dispose of the schedule property with the intention of defeating the decree that may be passed in the suit. The trial court has ignored the mandatory requirements of Order 38, Rule 5 while passing the impugned order. Hence, plaintiff has not made out any case to exercise power/jurisdiction under Order 38, Rule 5 by the Trial Court. Impugned order was quashed.  -  5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'T.A. Karumbaiah, Adv. for ;T.S. Ramachandra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Srinivasa Gowda and ;S.R. Hudlamane, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-09-06',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.</p><p>1. The validity and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, is sought to be challenged in this appeal preferred by the appellant-Temple.</p><p>2. Every year during Mahashivarathri Festival, the Temple conducts a jatra which is attended by a large number of persons. During the year 1988 the jatra was scheduled to take place from 11-2-1988 to 19-2-1988. As the gathering in the jatra used to be very large, it necessitated on the part of respondent 3, Mandal Panchayat, to make special arrangements for public health, safety or convenience. The third respondent having tentatively fixed a certain sum held a meeting with the Managing Trustee of the Temple and in the said meeting the probable expenditure likely to be incurred for making arrangements during the jatra was determined as Rs. 37,700/-. The third respondent, thereafter, acting under Section 76 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short) issued notice to the Temple to pay a sum of Rs. 37,700/-. The Temple preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum challenging the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed. In the petition filed before the learned Single Judge the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner were challenged on the ground that the order was notmade in accordance with the Rules. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as without merit. Hence, the present appeal.</p><p>3. We have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.</p><p>4. The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner are challenged on the ground that they did not conform with the Rules framed under the Act. The appellant does not dispute the fact that the Deputy Commissioner has the authority under the Act to make an assessment of the probable expenditure that the Mandal Panchayat may have to incur for holding of the jatra. Rule 3 of the Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 stipulates the manner in which the assessment that precedes the issue of notice under Section 76 of the Act, has to be made. The said rule reads:</p><p>'Manner of determination of contribution.--(1) The Deputy Commissioner may, before determining the contributions under Section 76, call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered, in the places referred to in Sub-section (1) of the said section.</p><p>(2) The Deputy Commissioner may, after consulting the trustee or other person having control over such place and having regard to the report called for under Sub-rule (1), determine the quantum of recurring or non-recurring contribution required to be made to the funds of the Mandal Panchayat under Section 76'.</p><p>Sub-rule (1) mandates the calling of report by the Deputy Commissioner from the Mandal Panchayat concerned before determining the contribution recoverable under Section 76 of the Act. Under Sub-rule (2) the Deputy Commissioner has to consult the trustee or any other person having control over such place before making the determination.</p><p>5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law. Sub-rule (1) requires the Deputy Commissioner to, 'call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered.....'. The expenditure had to be necessarily incurred by the Mandal Panchayat much prior to the actual event as the arrangements to be made are more in the nature of preventive measures to be taken for safeguarding public health, safety etc. The arrangements to be made would be more in the nature of preventing communicable diseases, providing for the security of the people thronging the jatra, making arrangement for the movement of the public etc. Therefore, the contention that the Mandal Panchayat could have had an idea of the probable expenditure only after the completion of the jatra is without substance.</p><p>It is also not the case of the appellant that no such report as envisaged under Sub-rule (1) was called for by the Deputy Commissioner.</p><p>6. The Deputy Commissioner having had consultations under sub-rule (2) of the Rules with the Managing Trustee had, in fact, scaled down the estimation made and fixed the contribution payable by the Temple at Rs. 37,700/-. Such determination being quite in accordance with the Rules, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition.</p><p>7. In our considered opinion, there is no ground much less a valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.</p><p>8. In the result, for the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'ILR2002KAR2296; 2002(2)KarLJ173',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '371660',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/371660/shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The validity and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, is sought to be challenged in this appeal preferred by the appellant-Temple.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Every year during Mahashivarathri Festival, the Temple conducts a jatra which is attended by a large number of persons. During the year 1988 the jatra was scheduled to take place from 11-2-1988 to 19-2-1988. As the gathering in the jatra used to be very large, it necessitated on the part of respondent 3, Mandal Panchayat, to make special arrangements for public health, safety or convenience. The third respondent having tentatively fixed a certain sum held a meeting with the Managing Trustee of the Temple and in the said meeting the probable expenditure likely to be incurred for making arrangements during the jatra was determined as Rs. 37,700/-. The third respondent, thereafter, acting under Section 76 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short) issued notice to the Temple to pay a sum of Rs. 37,700/-. The Temple preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum challenging the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed. In the petition filed before the learned Single Judge the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner were challenged on the ground that the order was notmade in accordance with the Rules. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as without merit. Hence, the present appeal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. We have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner are challenged on the ground that they did not conform with the Rules framed under the Act. The appellant does not dispute the fact that the Deputy Commissioner has the authority under the Act to make an assessment of the probable expenditure that the Mandal Panchayat may have to incur for holding of the jatra. Rule 3 of the Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 stipulates the manner in which the assessment that precedes the issue of notice under Section 76 of the Act, has to be made. The said rule reads:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>'Manner of determination of contribution.--(1) The Deputy Commissioner may, before determining the contributions under Section 76, call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered, in the places referred to in Sub-section (1) of the said section.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(2) The Deputy Commissioner may, after consulting the trustee or other person having control over such place and having regard to the report called for under Sub-rule (1), determine the quantum of recurring or non-recurring contribution required to be made to the funds of the Mandal Panchayat under Section 76'.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>Sub-rule (1) mandates the calling of report by the Deputy Commissioner from the Mandal Panchayat concerned before determining the contribution recoverable under Section 76 of the Act. Under Sub-rule (2) the Deputy Commissioner has to consult the trustee or any other person having control over such place before making the determination.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law. Sub-rule (1) requires the Deputy Commissioner to, 'call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered.....'. The expenditure had to be necessarily incurred by the Mandal Panchayat much prior to the actual event as the arrangements to be made are more in the nature of preventive measures to be taken for safeguarding public health, safety etc. The arrangements to be made would be more in the nature of preventing communicable diseases, providing for the security of the people thronging the jatra, making arrangement for the movement of the public etc. Therefore, the contention that the Mandal Panchayat could have had an idea of the probable expenditure only after the completion of the jatra is without substance.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>It is also not the case of the appellant that no such report as envisaged under Sub-rule (1) was called for by the Deputy Commissioner.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. The Deputy Commissioner having had consultations under sub-rule (2) of the Rules with the Managing Trustee had, in fact, scaled down the estimation made and fixed the contribution payable by the Temple at Rs. 37,700/-. Such determination being quite in accordance with the Rules, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>7. In our considered opinion, there is no ground much less a valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. In the result, for the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 12
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

8. In the result, for the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev Gokarna Vs the Divisional Commissioner Belgaum Division Belgaum and ors - Citation 371660 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '371660',
			'acts' => 'Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 - Sections 76; Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 - Rule 3 and 3(2)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 330 of 1999',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna Vs. the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 38, Rule 5: [A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J] Attachment before judgment  Suit for specific performance of agreement  I.As for grant of interim injunctions and attachment before judgment  Held,  Unless the plaintiff establishes that the defendant is attempting to remove or dispose of his assets, with an intention to defeat the decree that may be passed against him, the application under Order 38, Rule 5 cannot be allowed. On facts, held, Trial Court has not recorded in its order that the first defendant is likely to dispose of the schedule property with the intention of defeating the decree that may be passed in the suit. The trial court has ignored the mandatory requirements of Order 38, Rule 5 while passing the impugned order. Hence, plaintiff has not made out any case to exercise power/jurisdiction under Order 38, Rule 5 by the Trial Court. Impugned order was quashed.  -  5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'T.A. Karumbaiah, Adv. for ;T.S. Ramachandra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Srinivasa Gowda and ;S.R. Hudlamane, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-09-06',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The validity and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, is sought to be challenged in this appeal preferred by the appellant-Temple.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Every year during Mahashivarathri Festival, the Temple conducts a jatra which is attended by a large number of persons. During the year 1988 the jatra was scheduled to take place from 11-2-1988 to 19-2-1988. As the gathering in the jatra used to be very large, it necessitated on the part of respondent 3, Mandal Panchayat, to make special arrangements for public health, safety or convenience. The third respondent having tentatively fixed a certain sum held a meeting with the Managing Trustee of the Temple and in the said meeting the probable expenditure likely to be incurred for making arrangements during the jatra was determined as Rs. 37,700/-. The third respondent, thereafter, acting under Section 76 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short) issued notice to the Temple to pay a sum of Rs. 37,700/-. The Temple preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum challenging the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed. In the petition filed before the learned Single Judge the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner were challenged on the ground that the order was notmade in accordance with the Rules. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as without merit. Hence, the present appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. We have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner are challenged on the ground that they did not conform with the Rules framed under the Act. The appellant does not dispute the fact that the Deputy Commissioner has the authority under the Act to make an assessment of the probable expenditure that the Mandal Panchayat may have to incur for holding of the jatra. Rule 3 of the Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 stipulates the manner in which the assessment that precedes the issue of notice under Section 76 of the Act, has to be made. The said rule reads:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Manner of determination of contribution.--(1) The Deputy Commissioner may, before determining the contributions under Section 76, call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered, in the places referred to in Sub-section (1) of the said section.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Deputy Commissioner may, after consulting the trustee or other person having control over such place and having regard to the report called for under Sub-rule (1), determine the quantum of recurring or non-recurring contribution required to be made to the funds of the Mandal Panchayat under Section 76'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sub-rule (1) mandates the calling of report by the Deputy Commissioner from the Mandal Panchayat concerned before determining the contribution recoverable under Section 76 of the Act. Under Sub-rule (2) the Deputy Commissioner has to consult the trustee or any other person having control over such place before making the determination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law. Sub-rule (1) requires the Deputy Commissioner to, 'call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered.....'. The expenditure had to be necessarily incurred by the Mandal Panchayat much prior to the actual event as the arrangements to be made are more in the nature of preventive measures to be taken for safeguarding public health, safety etc. The arrangements to be made would be more in the nature of preventing communicable diseases, providing for the security of the people thronging the jatra, making arrangement for the movement of the public etc. Therefore, the contention that the Mandal Panchayat could have had an idea of the probable expenditure only after the completion of the jatra is without substance.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is also not the case of the appellant that no such report as envisaged under Sub-rule (1) was called for by the Deputy Commissioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The Deputy Commissioner having had consultations under sub-rule (2) of the Rules with the Managing Trustee had, in fact, scaled down the estimation made and fixed the contribution payable by the Temple at Rs. 37,700/-. Such determination being quite in accordance with the Rules, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In our considered opinion, there is no ground much less a valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In the result, for the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'ILR2002KAR2296; 2002(2)KarLJ173',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '371660',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev Gokarna Vs the Divisional Commissioner Belgaum Division Belgaum and ors - Citation 371660 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '371660',
		'acts' => 'Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 - Sections 76; Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 - Rule 3 and 3(2)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Appeal No. 330 of 1999',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna Vs. the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Order 38, Rule 5: [A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J] Attachment before judgment  Suit for specific performance of agreement  I.As for grant of interim injunctions and attachment before judgment  Held,  Unless the plaintiff establishes that the defendant is attempting to remove or dispose of his assets, with an intention to defeat the decree that may be passed against him, the application under Order 38, Rule 5 cannot be allowed. On facts, held, Trial Court has not recorded in its order that the first defendant is likely to dispose of the schedule property with the intention of defeating the decree that may be passed in the suit. The trial court has ignored the mandatory requirements of Order 38, Rule 5 while passing the impugned order. Hence, plaintiff has not made out any case to exercise power/jurisdiction under Order 38, Rule 5 by the Trial Court. Impugned order was quashed.  -  5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'T.A. Karumbaiah, Adv. for ;T.S. Ramachandra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Srinivasa Gowda and ;S.R. Hudlamane, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-09-06',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.</p><p>1. The validity and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, is sought to be challenged in this appeal preferred by the appellant-Temple.</p><p>2. Every year during Mahashivarathri Festival, the Temple conducts a jatra which is attended by a large number of persons. During the year 1988 the jatra was scheduled to take place from 11-2-1988 to 19-2-1988. As the gathering in the jatra used to be very large, it necessitated on the part of respondent 3, Mandal Panchayat, to make special arrangements for public health, safety or convenience. The third respondent having tentatively fixed a certain sum held a meeting with the Managing Trustee of the Temple and in the said meeting the probable expenditure likely to be incurred for making arrangements during the jatra was determined as Rs. 37,700/-. The third respondent, thereafter, acting under Section 76 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short) issued notice to the Temple to pay a sum of Rs. 37,700/-. The Temple preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum challenging the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed. In the petition filed before the learned Single Judge the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner were challenged on the ground that the order was notmade in accordance with the Rules. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as without merit. Hence, the present appeal.</p><p>3. We have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.</p><p>4. The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner are challenged on the ground that they did not conform with the Rules framed under the Act. The appellant does not dispute the fact that the Deputy Commissioner has the authority under the Act to make an assessment of the probable expenditure that the Mandal Panchayat may have to incur for holding of the jatra. Rule 3 of the Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 stipulates the manner in which the assessment that precedes the issue of notice under Section 76 of the Act, has to be made. The said rule reads:</p><p>'Manner of determination of contribution.--(1) The Deputy Commissioner may, before determining the contributions under Section 76, call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered, in the places referred to in Sub-section (1) of the said section.</p><p>(2) The Deputy Commissioner may, after consulting the trustee or other person having control over such place and having regard to the report called for under Sub-rule (1), determine the quantum of recurring or non-recurring contribution required to be made to the funds of the Mandal Panchayat under Section 76'.</p><p>Sub-rule (1) mandates the calling of report by the Deputy Commissioner from the Mandal Panchayat concerned before determining the contribution recoverable under Section 76 of the Act. Under Sub-rule (2) the Deputy Commissioner has to consult the trustee or any other person having control over such place before making the determination.</p><p>5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law. Sub-rule (1) requires the Deputy Commissioner to, 'call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered.....'. The expenditure had to be necessarily incurred by the Mandal Panchayat much prior to the actual event as the arrangements to be made are more in the nature of preventive measures to be taken for safeguarding public health, safety etc. The arrangements to be made would be more in the nature of preventing communicable diseases, providing for the security of the people thronging the jatra, making arrangement for the movement of the public etc. Therefore, the contention that the Mandal Panchayat could have had an idea of the probable expenditure only after the completion of the jatra is without substance.</p><p>It is also not the case of the appellant that no such report as envisaged under Sub-rule (1) was called for by the Deputy Commissioner.</p><p>6. The Deputy Commissioner having had consultations under sub-rule (2) of the Rules with the Managing Trustee had, in fact, scaled down the estimation made and fixed the contribution payable by the Temple at Rs. 37,700/-. Such determination being quite in accordance with the Rules, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition.</p><p>7. In our considered opinion, there is no ground much less a valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.</p><p>8. In the result, for the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'ILR2002KAR2296; 2002(2)KarLJ173',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '371660',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/371660/shri-samsthan-mahabaleshwar-dev-gokarna-vs-divisional-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The validity and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, is sought to be challenged in this appeal preferred by the appellant-Temple.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Every year during Mahashivarathri Festival, the Temple conducts a jatra which is attended by a large number of persons. During the year 1988 the jatra was scheduled to take place from 11-2-1988 to 19-2-1988. As the gathering in the jatra used to be very large, it necessitated on the part of respondent 3, Mandal Panchayat, to make special arrangements for public health, safety or convenience. The third respondent having tentatively fixed a certain sum held a meeting with the Managing Trustee of the Temple and in the said meeting the probable expenditure likely to be incurred for making arrangements during the jatra was determined as Rs. 37,700/-. The third respondent, thereafter, acting under Section 76 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short) issued notice to the Temple to pay a sum of Rs. 37,700/-. The Temple preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum challenging the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed. In the petition filed before the learned Single Judge the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner were challenged on the ground that the order was notmade in accordance with the Rules. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as without merit. Hence, the present appeal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. We have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner are challenged on the ground that they did not conform with the Rules framed under the Act. The appellant does not dispute the fact that the Deputy Commissioner has the authority under the Act to make an assessment of the probable expenditure that the Mandal Panchayat may have to incur for holding of the jatra. Rule 3 of the Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 stipulates the manner in which the assessment that precedes the issue of notice under Section 76 of the Act, has to be made. The said rule reads:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>'Manner of determination of contribution.--(1) The Deputy Commissioner may, before determining the contributions under Section 76, call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered, in the places referred to in Sub-section (1) of the said section.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(2) The Deputy Commissioner may, after consulting the trustee or other person having control over such place and having regard to the report called for under Sub-rule (1), determine the quantum of recurring or non-recurring contribution required to be made to the funds of the Mandal Panchayat under Section 76'.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>Sub-rule (1) mandates the calling of report by the Deputy Commissioner from the Mandal Panchayat concerned before determining the contribution recoverable under Section 76 of the Act. Under Sub-rule (2) the Deputy Commissioner has to consult the trustee or any other person having control over such place before making the determination.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the estimate of the expenditure could be made only after the event and not before and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 76 even before the event took place is bad in law. Sub-rule (1) requires the Deputy Commissioner to, 'call for a report from the Mandal Panchayat concerned regarding the expenditure incurred by it towards the special arrangements made for public health, safety and convenience of the persons gathered.....'. The expenditure had to be necessarily incurred by the Mandal Panchayat much prior to the actual event as the arrangements to be made are more in the nature of preventive measures to be taken for safeguarding public health, safety etc. The arrangements to be made would be more in the nature of preventing communicable diseases, providing for the security of the people thronging the jatra, making arrangement for the movement of the public etc. Therefore, the contention that the Mandal Panchayat could have had an idea of the probable expenditure only after the completion of the jatra is without substance.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>It is also not the case of the appellant that no such report as envisaged under Sub-rule (1) was called for by the Deputy Commissioner.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. The Deputy Commissioner having had consultations under sub-rule (2) of the Rules with the Managing Trustee had, in fact, scaled down the estimation made and fixed the contribution payable by the Temple at Rs. 37,700/-. Such determination being quite in accordance with the Rules, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>7. In our considered opinion, there is no ground much less a valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>8. In the result, for the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 13
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Subject	Civil
Court	Karnataka High Court
Decided On	Sep-06-2001
Case Number	Writ Appeal No. 330 of 1999
Judge	G.C. Bharuka and ;A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, JJ.
Reported in	ILR2002KAR2296; 2002(2)KarLJ173
Acts	Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 - Sections 76; Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Determination of Contribution) Rules, 1986 - Rule 3 and 3(2)
Appellant	Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna
Respondent	The Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors.
Appellant Advocate	T.A. Karumbaiah, Adv. for ;T.S. Ramachandra, Adv.
Respondent Advocate	Srinivasa Gowda and ;S.R. Hudlamane, Advs.
Disposition	Appeal dismissed

Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna Vs. the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and ors. - Court Judgment