K.T. Pattabhiraman and Others vs State of Karnataka and Others

K.L. Manjunath, J.—These two appeals are preferred by the appellants challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 22722/2005 dated 9.2.2010.

The appellants in W.A. 864/2010 are the writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge. The appellants in W.A. 1008/10 were respondents 7 and 8 in the writ petition.

For the sake of convenience, the parties herein will be referred to as per their status before the learned Single Judge.

The first petitioner is a trust. Petitioner No. 2 is its secretary. The writ petition came to be filed by the trust to quash the order passed by the State Government on 15.09.2005 vide Annexure "A" wherein the State of Karnataka has permitted to keep the idol of Sri Somayaji Andan in the precincts of Sri Lakshmi Janardhana Swamy Temple at Bylahalli Village, which idol was presented by some of the devotees. This order is questioned by the writ petitioners/trust on the ground that there is no provision to keep the idol of Somayaji Andan in the precincts of the temple since he was only a Peetadhipathi or the follower of Saint Ramanuja and that there is no provision to keep an idol of such swamijis within the temple premises of Sri Janardhana Swamy.

The writ petition was contested by respondents 7 and 8 contending that the petition filed by the trust is not maintainable and the trust has no locus standi to challenge the Government Order. It was also contended that the idol in question was presented by the villagers and devotees much prior to the trust in question came into existence. It was contended that the trust deed came into existence with effect from 24.09.1997 and the idol was presented in June 1997. The writ petition was also resisted on several other grounds.

Prior to the filing of the instant writ petition, there were earlier litigations instituted by some of the villagers and devotees who had filed W.P. 29733/1997 by B.R. Keshavamurthy and others on the ground that idol of Somayaji Andan gifted by the villagers shall not be installed within the precincts of the temple and when an attempt was made by some of the villagers and devotees to install the idol, the writ petition came to be filed.

The writ petition was disposed of on 10.11.1997 directing the Government to consider the representation of the petitioners and also the objections filed by respondents 4 to 65 in the aforesaid writ petition and after examining the documents to take a decision in the matter as to where exactly the idol has to be installed. Pursuant to the same, the Government passed the present order.

The writ petition filed by the writ petitioners came to be allowed in part by the learned Single Judge on 09.02.2010 quashing annexure "A" and remanding the matter to the Government for fresh consideration and further directed that the Government shall take note of the report of the 2nd respondent and the opinion of the scholars, if necessary, and call for fresh opinion and also to consider various literature on the subject and decide whether Utsava Murthy can be installed without the Moola Murthy.

Learned Single Judge also directed that personal hearing shall be granted to both the parties while disposing of the matter and until he passes an order, status quo as on 30.09.2005 shall be maintained. Being not satisfied with the reliefs granted to the parties, the writ petitioners as well as the contesting respondents have filed these appeals.

Mr. P.A. Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners contends that the last direction issued by the learned Single Judge to maintain status quo as on 30.09.2005 is required to be set aside by this Court since the learned Single Judge has quashed Annexure "A" and directed the Government to reconsider the matter afresh.

Writ appeal is filed by the contesting respondents contending that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in allowing the writ petition, quashing Annexure "A" and remanding the matter to the Government for fresh consideration. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in W.A. 1008/2010, learned Single Judge was required to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of locus standi and maintainability of the writ petition. According to him, the trust had not come into existence when the idol was gifted by the villagers and that the order has been passed by the Government in the interest of the villagers and devotees. He further contends the trust has been created by the trustees for altogether a different purpose and the object of the trust does not empower the trustees to file a writ petition questioning the order passed by the State of Karnataka vide Annexure "A" to the writ petition in regard to the installation or keeping of the idol of Somayaji Andan within the precincts of the temple. According to him, when the objects of the trust does not empower the trustees to file the writ petition as the scope of the writ petition is entirely different from the aim and objects of the trust, the writ petition was required to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge, as not maintainable. He further submits that when an objection was raised by the respondents in the writ petition in regard to the maintainability of the writ petition, learned Single Judge has committed an error in disposing of the matter without giving a finding on the question of maintainability. In the circumstances, he requests the Court to allow the appeal.

Having heard the counsel for the parties, what is to be considered by this Court in these appeals is that whether the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the maintainability of the writ petition and whether the order of the learned Single Judge requires to be interfered with?

On a perusal of the writ petition papers, it is not in dispute that the first petitioner is a trust and the second petitioner is its secretary. What is questioned by the petitioners in the writ petition is the order passed by the state government vide Annexure-A dated 15-9-2005, wherein the government has permitted to keep the idol of Sri Somayaji Andan in the place where it was installed earlier. The temple in question is a muzrai institution governed by the provisions of the Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 [for short, the Act] and the Tahsildar of the taluk is the Muzrai officer of the temple. The trust deed has come into existence with effect from 24-9-1997. The aims and objects of the trust is for the advancement of Srivaishnavism, according to the preaching and doctrines of Saint Ramanujacharya and Nigamantha Vedantha Deshika teachings and his culture and Srivaishnava religious, cultural, spiritual, social and charitable objections and also to bring the same within the limits of a valid trust and yet to give effect to such provisions as nearly as practicable. The registered office of the trust is at No. 31, Nandana, Sri Venkateshwara Krupa Layout, West of Chord Road, Bengaluru-79. The trust is created only with an avowed object to achieve the goal set forth by the religious leaders like Saint Ramanujacharya and Nigamantha Vedantha Deshikar, on no profit basis with the only object of spreading their teachings for the benefit of the entire Srivaishnava community. One of the objects of the trust is also to carry out teachings by way of publication of books, pamphlets, produce documentaries, audio and video cassettes in order to spread the glory of Vishisthadwaitha Dharma. However, the trust deed does not provide for how the trust can sue or be sued?

Considering the main object of the trust, it is difficult for any court to accept the right of the writ petitioners in filing writ petition to challenge the Annexure-A government order, which only directed to keep an idol of Sri Somayaji Andan, who was one of the followers of Saint Ramanujacharya or a Peetadhipathi, in the premises of Sri Lakshmi Janardhana Swamy temple at Bylahalli. We have also seen the entire petition papers. In the petition, it is not stated by the petitioners as to how they are interested in the subject matter of the petition and how the government order has affected the aims and objects of the trust. The petition is signed by only the secretary of the trust. Along with the petition, the petitioners have also not produced any resolution passed by the trustees empowering the secretary to file the writ petition. If the trust deed is silent with regard to the manner in which the trust can sue or be sued, all the trustees are required to be made as parties, representing the trust.

As stated supra, the question is in regard to installation of an idol of Sri Somayaji Andan in the precincts of Sri Lakshmi Janardhana Swamy temple at Bylahalli village. It is not the main deity. The deity of Sri Lakshmi Janardhana Swamy is installed in the sanctum sanctorum of the temple. Sri Somayaji Andan is said to be one of the followers of Saint Ramanujacharya and also a peetadhipathi. His date of birth would be observed by the devotees and also the residents of the said village who are followers of Sri Lakshmi Janardhana Swamy, the deity of the temple. On the thirunakshtra [birthday] of Sri Somayaji Andan, the idol in question would be taken in procession around the temple and thereafter the same would be kept in the temple premises and not within the garbhagudi of the temple.

Therefore, the writ petitioners cannot have any locus standi to question the orders of the state government. As a matter of fact, the state government has passed the impugned order on the direction issued by this court in the earlier writ petition. Before passing the order, the government has followed the procedure. In the circumstance, we are of the opinion that the petitioners have no locus standi to file the writ petition.

The learned Single Judge, without considering the locus standi of the petitioners in filing the writ petition, has erroneously entertained the writ petition and set aside the order passed by the government and remanded the matter to the government for fresh consideration. We would have appreciated the case of the petitioners provided if the second petitioner K.R. Mukunda has filed the writ petition in his individual capacity as a devotee of the temple. On the contrary, the petition is filed in the name of the trust. When the object of the trust is to propagate the ideology and teachings of Saint Ramanujacharya and Nigamantha Vedantha Deshika, it is the domain of the trust to continue their activities and whether the idol of Sri Somayaji Andan is installed in any particular place within the precincts of the Sri Lakshmi Janardhana Swamy temple at Bylahalli village is not a concern of the writ petitioners and they have no locus standi to question the impugned government order.

It is also brought to our notice that against the order of the learned Single, the government had filed W.A. No. 2835 of 2010 before this court, which appeal has been dismissed by a coordinate Bench on 14-1-2011. The coordinate Bench, which dismissed the appeal filed by the government, has not considered the question of maintainability of the writ petition. Therefore, any order passed by the coordinate Bench on other grounds cannot be a ground to dismiss these appeals.

When we hold that the writ petitioners have no locus standi to file the writ petition, the appeal in W.A. No. 864 of 2010 has to be dismissed, and the order of the learned Single Judge has to be set aside.

In the result, W.A. No. 1008 of 2010 is hereby allowed and W.A. No. 864 of 2010 is dismissed. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioners in W.P. No. 22722 of 2005 is hereby dismissed, as not maintainable.