Sri Vinayaka Seva Samithi vs The State of Karnataka and Others

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned Senior Advocate Shri Jayakumar S. Patil appearing for the petitioner, the learned Additional Advocate General Shri A.S. Ponnanna appearing for the State and Shri P.S. Rajagopal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the counsel for Respondents 5 to 16.

The facts of the case are as follows:

"The petitioner is said to be a registered society under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as ''the KSR Act'', for brevity) and was said to have been registered on 2.2.1976. It is claimed that it was established to administer and manage Sri Vinayaka Temple and also with aims and objects to run a devotional and cultural centre, etc. The petitioner - Society, in pursuance of its objects and in order to develop the said Temple which has a large number of devotees in and around Bangalore, is said to have renovated and reconstructed the Temple in existence, with the concerted efforts of the members of the Managing Committee and on the strength of contributions from the general public and devotees. The same has been utilized in the development of the Temple. The petitioner claims to have maintained proper Accounts of the monies received and the valuables available. In this background, one Keshav Kumar, the erstwhile Secretary and a member of the petitioner, and his group of followers, were not happy with the successful development of the Temple and the welfare programs that were being carried on by the present management and being motivated by such ill-feelings, had made repeated attempts to dislodge the management. It is in this background that Keshav Kumar was repeatedly warned by the Committee of Management and a resolution was ultimately passed removing him from the membership of the Society, keeping the larger interest of the Temple and the devotees in view.

It is the further allegation of the petitioner that Keshav Kumar, during his tenure as the Secretary, had acted against the interest of the Society for his personal benefit. He had made repeated attempts to make allegations against the present management as a retaliation for his removal from the Society and in this exercise, he had made repeated representations to the Respondents 1 to 4, on the basis of which the fourth respondent had issued a notice to the petitioner dated 26.03.2013, which had been duly replied. A further notice was then issued on 15.05.2013 to which again a detailed reply was said to have been submitted. It is evident from the exchange of correspondence that Keshav Kumar was instrumental in initiating such action on the part of the respondents. Respondents 1 to 4 being seriously prejudiced against the petitioner on the basis of such false allegations, have alleged mismanagement and misappropriation and have passed an order dated 4.1.2014 directing the petitioner to hand over the custody of the Temple and it is in this background that the petitioner is before this Court."

The learned Senior Advocate Shri Jayakumar S. Patil would draw attention to the provisions of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 and particularly to Sections 42 and 43, which provide the power to the respondents to take action in case of mismanagement of any Temple covered under the provisions of the said Act and he would point out that there has been total violation of the procedure in the impugned order having been passed. He would also take this Court through the record to demonstrate that the petitioner - Society has been acting bona fide and that it has been filing its returns to the competent authority regularly and there has been no complaint of any such mismanagement from any quarter, except at the instance of the said Keshav Kumar. The respondents now have intervened and taken arbitrary measures to dislodge the petitioner - Society from the efficient and transparent management of the temple which was carried on for the past several decades without any complaint from any quarter whatsoever. It is this primary aspect which is sought to be emphasized and re-emphasized.

The State Government has filed its statement of objections.

The learned Additional Advocate General would raise certain preliminary objections to the very maintainability of the petition. He would firstly contend that the petitioner - Society could not be registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act at all, as the objects for which a Society could be constituted under the provisions of the said Act does not include purposes of religion and therefore, the very claim of the petitioner being a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act to administer and manage the Temple, is itself not tenable. Further, it is pointed out that even from the Memorandum of Association of the petitioner - Society, it is evident that there is no such object mentioned as to the petitioner being constituted to manage and administer any Temple. The objects mentioned are vague and without reference to any temple. Therefore, the very existence of the Society as a Committee of Management to manage the affairs of the temple cannot be accepted. It is also pointed out that the petitioner - Society having assumed the management and administration of the temple, is without any authority of law. Admittedly, the land on which the Temple stands and the building thereon does not belong to the Society. It is the property of the State. The surreptitious manner in which the petitioner - Society may have entrenched itself on the property and has been claiming the management and administration and collecting contributions from the general public and the devotees over the several decades, is certainly not accounted for. The claim that the petitioner is a registered Society and that it has been regularly filing its returns before the competent authority is also false and misleading. It is seen from the record that the so-called Society has filed its returns for a period of 36 years at one go, which itself is indicative of the manner in which the so-called Society has been allegedly managing the affairs of the Temple. It is on this and other gross violations which were brought to the attention of the State that action has been initiated and an Administrator has been appointed.

It is seen in the recent past that the income derived at the Temple runs into several lakhs and this not having been promptly accounted or vouched for by the petitioner - Society, is itself a grave concern of the State, which has warranted drastic measures being taken to curb any further mischief and therefore, the action taken by the State cannot be faulted. It is in this vein that the action of the State is sought to be justified by the learned Additional Advocate General.

Shri P.S. Rajagopal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Respondents 5 to 16 would also second the contentions by the learned Additional Advocate General and would add that the mischief and want of bona fides on the part of the petitioner - Society and its members is writ large. There is no warrant for any detailed investigation into the manner in which the valuable properties and the rich contributions have been siphoned off by the petitioner in the absence of any accounts, which is a strong presumption which would arise against the Society and its managing committee. He would further submit that the primary issue would be as to whether the Society has any authority to manage and administer the Temple which is admittedly not the property of any private Trust or Society, but is the property of the State. It is pointed out that apart from any person who may have brought the malfeasance and misfeasance on the part of the Committee of Management of the petitioner - Society, there are several devotees and others keenly interested in the Temple who have seen the manner in which the Committee of Management of the Society is running the affairs of the Temple and therefore, are seriously disturbed by the autocratic manner in which the Society has been purportedly managing and administering the affairs of the Temple, which the State should immediately curb and in the interest of the general public and the devotees, the Temple management ought to be taken over by the competent authorities.

However, from the material on record, it is evident that the Respondents 1 to 4 have not complied with the procedure prescribed under Section 43 of the KSR Act in proceeding to take action against the petitioner - Society. As rightly pointed out by Shri Jayakumar S. Patil, in initiating the proceedings under sub-section (1) of Section 43 of the KSR Act, there should be an initial satisfaction recorded by the competent authority in calling upon the erring members of the Society or the Managing Committee to show cause as to why further action ought not to be taken. This according to the learned Senior Advocate is not specifically alleged against any member of the Society, but general allegations are made as to there being defaults on several counts. This by itself would not be reason to initiate any such proceedings in the absence of specific allegations which the Society could address. Further, even if the allegations could be sustained on the reply having been filed by the Society, there ought to have been a further exercise of framing issues on which an enquiry could be conducted. This minimum requirement has not been complied with. Therefore, the entire action of the Respondents 1 to 4 is in violation of principles of natural justice and totally contrary to the procedure prescribed. Therefore, it would on the face of it appear that the respondents have short circuited the procedure in their eagerness to dislodge the Managing Committee of the Society.

It is also brought to the attention of this Court that in similar circumstances, in W.P. No. 14251-53/2012 disposed of on 28.03.2013, in the case of Sri Prasanna Veeranjaneya Swamy Trust v. The Secretary to Government and others, this Court in holding that the proceedings initiated against the management of one other temple, in that particular case, having been found fault with and the course adopted by this court in that case was to direct that an Administrator who was appointed be continued in place till such time a fresh enquiry was conducted and appropriate orders were passed in accordance with law. Considering the consequence of setting aside the proceedings initiated by the respondents, the controversy arose as to whether it would be in accordance with law for an Administrator appointed in the present case on hand to be continued in place in the absence of any legal provision in that regard in permitting the State to redo the proceedings insofar as invoking its power under Sections 42 and 43 of the Act.

Though there is no such legal provision, it would be prudent for the Administrator who was appointed pursuant to the proceedings to be continued for the time being. In exercise of power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in the interest of the public and in order to safeguard valuable properties and funds that are generated from the general public and the devotees of the Temple, it would be prudent to direct the Administrator who has been appointed, to continue in place till such time the State should hold fresh proceedings and pass orders, in accordance with law.

Therefore, the urgency being felt by the State Government which had prompted it to take action which is under challenge, it would be expected that the State would initiate proceedings forthwith and complete any such enquiry and proceedings with expedition, in any event, within a period of six months if not earlier from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The impugned order is quashed.

The petition is accordingly disposed of in terms as above.