NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.16311636/2021
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos.2401524020 of 2018)
Ramachnadrapura Math .…Petitioner (s)
Versus
Sri Samsthana Mahabaleshwara
Devaru & Ors. …. Respondent(s)
With
Civil Appeal No.1637/2021 @ SLP (C) No.24321/2018
and
Civil Appeal Nos.16381643/2021 @ SLP (C) Nos.6443
6448/2021 (D.No.6578/2021)
O R D E R
1. The petitioners are before this Court claiming to be
aggrieved by the order dated 10.08.2018 passed by the High
Court of Karnataka in W.P. No.30609/2008 and connected
petitions. The issue raised in the petitions was with regard to
1
the status of ‘Gokarna Mahabaleshwara Temple’. A
Notification dated 30.04.2003/01.05.2003 was issued under
Section 23 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and
Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 notifying the temples
mentioned therein as coming within the purview of the Act. In
the said notification, the ‘Gokarna Mahabaleshwara Temple’
was also included at Serial No.92. The said position remained
so until the petitioners herein claiming to be aggrieved by
such notification made a representation seeking that the
temple be deleted from the notification since according to
them it was attached to the petitioners’ ‘Mutt’ and was
therefore not covered by the Act in view of Section 1(4) of the
Act, 1997. Pursuant thereto the official respondents through
the Government Order dated 12.08.2008 ordered the deletion
of ‘Shri Mahabaleshwara Temple’, Gokarna from the list of
notified temples published on 30.04.2003. The Deputy
Commissioner was accordingly directed to hand over the
administration of the temple to the petitioner ‘Mutt’.
2. The said Government Order dated 12.08.2008
whereunder the temple was denotified was assailed in public
2
interest by the devotees and representatives of the former
trustees by filing writ petitions in the High Court of
Karnataka. All the writ petitions were taken up together for
consideration by the Division Bench and on a detailed
consideration the Government Order dated 12.08.2008 was
quashed, result of which was that the temple in question
remained to be a notified temple under Act, 1997. It was held
that a determination was required to be made as to whether
the temple belonged to the ‘Mutt’ by a competent Civil Court
since disputed questions of fact cannot be decided in a writ
petition. However, taking note of various other aspects
including the validity of Act, 1997 itself pending
consideration before this Court, the Division Bench has
constituted the Committee termed as “Overseeing Committee”
under the Chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner, Uttara
Kannada District and also requested a former Judge of this
Court to be the advisor to the said committee. The said
arrangement was made till the committee in terms of Act,
1997 is constituted.
3
3. The petitioner ‘Mutt’ would, therefore, get divested of
the right to administer the temple and, as such, claiming to
be aggrieved is before this Court. The Division Bench of the
High Court on pronouncing the order, at the request on
behalf the petitioner herein had stayed the implementation of
the order for a period of one month due to which petitioner
continues to be in charge. This Court while directing notice to
the respondent on 07.09.2018 extended the benefit of the
interim order granted by the High Court, which was
thereafter clarified to indicate that the status quo was to be
maintained.
4. In that light though the petitions were taken up for
final consideration, it was noticed that the hearing of the
petition will have to be exhaustive and will require deeper
consideration. That apart, the Act, 1997 under which the
notification was made in the year 2003, was thereafter
declared as unconstitutional by the Division Bench of the
High Court of Karnataka in another proceeding, through the
judgment dated 08.09.2006. The said judgment is assailed
before this Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs.
4
Sahasra Lingesshwara in C.A. No.5924/2008 wherein the
judgment of the High Court is stayed through the order dated
12.07.2007. Thus, the result in the said appeal would also
have a bearing on this case, apart from the factual aspects
involved in these petitions which require deeper
consideration. We therefore deem it proper to admit these
petitions for hearing by granting leave.
5. Delay condoned in SLP @ D.No.6578/21. Leave granted
in all the petitions.
6. Sri. S.S. Nagananda, learned senior counsel appearing
for the contesting respondents would however make out a
grievance that the petitioners taking benefit of the interim
extension of the limited interim order granted by the High
Court will continue to be in charge of the temple, to the
detriment of the devotees despite the High Court having
upheld the notification under Section 23 of Act, 1997 and the
order dated 12.08.2008 being quashed. Since we have
granted leave and the appeals will have to be heard in usual
course, merely allowing the status quo order made earlier
5
would work to the detriment of the contesting respondents
and other devotees despite having succeeded in the petition
before the High Court. At the same time, it would not be just
if the interim order is vacated in entirety and allow the
takeover of the temple in terms of the notification under
Section 23 of Act, 1997. The equities are to be balanced.
Hence in our opinion an appropriate interim arrangement to
protect the interest of all parties is to be made pending
consideration of the appeals on merit.
7. In that background Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi,
learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner ‘Mutt’ and
Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the
State of Karnataka were heard, who have contended to assail
the judgment passed by the High Court, while Shri S.S.
Nagananda, learned senior counsel has sought to support the
view taken by the High Court. Similarly, we have heard other
learned counsel and perused the petition papers limited to
the extent of considering the interim arrangement.
8. The petitioners contended with regard to the history of
the ‘Mutt’ dating back to the 8th Century A.D. and being
6
established by Adi Shankaracharya who established the
‘Mutt’ at Gokarna and ordered his disciples to look after the
affairs of the ‘Mutt’ and the Gokarna Temple. However, a
trust was created to manage the temple only to meet the
requirement under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (‘BPT
Act’ for short). But it is contended that it has been
subsequently held that BPT Act is not applicable to
Karnataka. The present pontiff i.e., petitioner No.2 is stated
to be the 36th pontiff in an unbroken line. In that light the
right of the ‘Mutt’ over the temple is contended and reference
is made to Section 1(4) of Act, 1997 which makes the Act
inapplicable in respect of the temples belonging to the ‘Mutt’.
The contesting respondents however, dispute the position
and have referred to the consideration made by the High
Court to hold otherwise.
9. From the rival contentions what is relevant ultimately
is to consider whether the factual aspect relating to the
status of the temple i.e. whether it belongs to the ‘Mutt’ has
been established in accordance with the requirement under
law to establish the factual position. At the outset, it is to be
7
noted that the notification under Section 23 of the Act, 1997
is dated 30.04.2003/01.05.2003 and the position of the
temple being governed under the provisions of the Act was
accepted by the appellants for nearly five years until the
representation was made by the appellants as late as on
18.03.2008. Dr. Singhvi on referring to the said
representation has pointed to the proposal forwarded by the
Tehsildar, Kumta to the Assistant Commissioner and the
opinion of the Assistant Commissioner being considered by
the Deputy Commissioner, Commissioner and ultimately the
opinion of the learned Advocate General being taken note,
after which the Government Order dated 12.08.2008 was
passed by the Government of Karnataka. We do not find
anything to suggest that an enquiry was initiated under the
Act and parties were made aware that the Authorities were
enquiring into the question whether the temple belongs to the
Math or not. Such an enquiry would naturally have entailed
an opportunity to lead evidence.
10. The High Court though had taken note of the said
documents was ultimately of the view that the factual
8
determination relating to the status of the temple belonging
to the ‘Mutt’ or not was to be decided in a civil suit. It is also
contended that in another proceedings in Writ Appeal
No.5131/2008, through the order dated 15.12.2008 it was
held therein also that the jurisdiction of the civil court is to
be invoked to decide the disputed question of fact. The
learned senior counsel for the appellants would, however,
contend that Section 68 of Act, 1997 bars the jurisdiction of
the civil court and in that circumstance the conclusion
reached by the Commissioner based on the report submitted
by the Tehsildar, Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy
Commissioner should be held as conclusive on that aspect.
Though such contention is put forth, no documents to
establish the fact of the temple belonging to the ‘Mutt’ was
brought to our notice from the records nor was any such
document shown to have been relied upon by the Tehsildar or
the Commissioner in support of their recommendation. As
noted, on all these aspects the above appeals will require a
detailed consideration. One other aspect which is also
brought to our notice is a subsequent amendment introduced
9
in the year 2012 to Act, 1997 through Section 20A wherein
the disputed questions of the present nature has been left to
be decided by the ‘Rajya Dharmika Parishad’. Therefore, in
the instant facts the nature of consideration to be made will
arise at a later stage.
11. However, prima facie for the present, a perusal of the
consideration made from the initiation of the proceedings by
the Tehsildar on 20.02.2008 would indicate that the
determination of the status is not based on the evidence or
material relied upon in that regard. The Tehsildar, on the
other hand, has based the conclusion to recommend the
entrustment of the administration of the temple to the ‘Mutt’
in view of the overall improvement and also the opinion
expressed by the President of Gram Panchayat, Gokarna
which would not be sufficient to satisfy the requirement of
Section 1(4) of Act, 1997. The further consideration made by
the Assistant Commissioner, upto Commissioner and the
proceedings of the Government resulting in the order dated
12.08.2008 to delete the temple, prima facie indicates to be
10
an unilateral proceedings to which the contesting
respondents were not parties. In a matter where rival
contentions are being urged by the appellants and the
contesting respondents relating to the status of the temple,
appropriate determination/adjudication is required to be
made in accordance with law after providing opportunity to
both.
12. All the above aspects would require detail
consideration. The position remains that from the period of
the notification in the year 2003 the authorities under the Act
were in charge of the affairs of the temple till the impugned
order dated 12.08.2008 was passed. Subsequently since the
High Court has set aside the said order dated 12.08.2008, in
the usual course the inclusion of the temple in the
notification issued under Section 23 of Act, 1997 would revive
and the administration will have to be made as provided
under the Act. However, since a final decision is to be taken
in these appeals, it would not be appropriate to allow that
course. Instead, the appropriate course in the interest of the
temple as well as the devotees as also the ‘Mutt’ would be to
11
allow the administration of the temple by an independent
committee so that the temple is administered in an
appropriate manner for the benefit of all devotees until a final
determination is made.
13. To that extent, as already noticed the High Court while
quashing the Government Order dated 12.08.2008 and
holding that the temple shall continue to be included in the
list of notified institutions as per Section 23 of Act, 1997;
pending constitution of the Committee of Management for the
temple under the provisions of the Act had constituted an
“Overseeing Committee”. Presently since we are of the view
that a detailed consideration will be necessary herein and the
validity of the Act, 1997 is also pending in a collateral
proceeding, as an interim arrangement the said ‘Overseeing
Committee’ shall administer the temple pending
consideration of this appeal. There shall be a minor
modification in the composition of the committee formed by
the High Court.
14. In that view, in modification of all earlier interim orders
we direct that the ‘Overseeing Committee’ shall function
12
under the Chairmanship of Hon’ble Justice Sri. B.N.
Srikrishna, Former Judge, Supreme Court of India and
manage the affairs of the temple in all respects. The
Overseeing Committee shall consist of the following as
members;
(i) Deputy Commissioner, Uttara Kannada District
(ii) Superintendent of Police, Uttara Kannada District
(iii) Assistant Commissioner, Kumta SubDivision,
Kumta
(iv) Two eminent persons/scholars, capable of
discharging their functions as members of the
Committee, to be nominated by the State
Government;
(v) Two Upadivantas of Gokarna Temple to be
nominated by the Deputy Commissioner in
consultation with the State Government. The
committee shall oversee the functioning of the temple
by adhering to all traditions.
15. The two eminent persons and the two Upadivantas
indicated above to be members shall be nominated within 15
days from the date of this order and the committee shall take
over the management of the temple immediately thereafter,
13
which shall be subject to final orders to be made in these
appeals. The appellant ‘Mutt’ shall hand over charge of the
affairs of the temple to the Assistant Commissioner who shall
also act as Secretary to the ‘Overseeing Committee’.
16. Issue notice to respondents in SLP @ D.No.6578/21.
Pleadings be completed.
17. Ordered accordingly.
..…………....................CJI.
(S. A. Bobde)
…..…………....................J.
(A.S. Bopanna)
..…..………......................J
(V. Ramasubramanian)
New Delhi,
April 19, 2021
14
