Sriramappa v. The Deputy Commissioner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 36931 OF 2025 (GM-R/C) BETWEEN:

¶1SRIRAMAPPA S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/A SEETHI VILLAGE, VEMGAL HOBLI, KOLAR-563 101 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. K S PONNAPPA., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KUMBARAHALLI, MULBAGAL ROAD, NH-75, KOLAR, KARNATAKA-563 101

¶2THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE, SRI PATHESHWARASWAMY BHAIRAVESHWARASWAMY TEMPLE, SEETHI VILLAGE, VEMGAL HOBLI, KOLAR-563 101.

3. NARAYANASWAMY SINCE DEAD BY

MUNIYAMMA AGED MAJOR C/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY

4. DEVARAJ AGED MAJOR S/O OF LATE NARAYANASWAMY

by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

5. BHAIRESH AGED MAJOR S/O OF BASAWARAJAPPA

RESIDING IN SEETHI VILLAGE, VEMGAL HOBLI, KOLAR - 563 101. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C H DEVARAJ, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R2; SRI DEVARAJ M., ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.06.2025 PASSED BY THE R-1, AT KOLAR IN ¥ÀæPÀgÀt ¸ÀASÉå r«J¸ï(1)¹Cgï:307/2023-24, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER

¶1The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Issue a writ of certiorari and consequently quash the order dated 19.06.2025 passed by the Respondent No.1, at Kolar in ¥ÀæPÀgÀt ¸ÀASÉå r«J¸ï(1)¹Cgï:307/2023-24, produced at Annexure-A;

b. Pass any such orders or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems proper and fit in the interest of justice and equity.

¶2A representation was submitted by respondents No.3 to 5 stating that, along with the petitioner, they had been discharging Dhobi duties at Sri Patheswaraswamy Sri Bairaveshwaraswamy Temple, Seethi Village, Vemgal Hobli, Kolar. It was alleged

that the petitioner had not been sharing the salary received by him with the respondents. Upon consideration of the said representation, respondent No.1, by the impugned order, made a rotational allotment of the Dhobi duties among the three families. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

¶3The submission of Sri.K.S.Ponnappa., learned counsel for the petitioner is that the allegation of the respondents No.3 to 5 being only as regards the sharing of the salary received by the petitioner. In such circumstances, respondent No.1 did not have the power to decide the same under Sub-section (6) of Section 25-B of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 by directing a rotational appointment of the Dhobi duties among the three families. On that ground, he submits that the respondent No.1 has exceeded the jurisdiction requiring this Court to exercise his supervisory jurisdictions and set aside the interim order.

¶4Heard Sri.K.S.Ponnappa., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.C.H.Devaraj., learned counsel for respondents No.3 to 5. Perused papers.

¶5One of the allegations which had been made by respondents No.3 to 5 is that the salary was not shared by the petitioner with respondents No.3 to 5. However, the contention raised by respondents No.3 to 5 is that they along with the petitioner, had been jointly discharging the Dhobi duties at the aforesaid temple and that being member of the same family, they are entitled to carry out Dhobi duties in respect to said temple.

¶6This contention gains credence, in view of the fact that even as per the petitioner, his grandfather was carrying out the Dhobi duties and thereafter requested that the petitioner, being his grandson, be appointed as Dhobi for the said temple, which would indicate that the said Dhobi work is being carried out by the family, and on that ground there was a claim made by the respondents No.3 to 5.

¶7The Deputy Commissioner deemed fit to pass necessary orders on the said application by providing for the discharge of the Dhobi duties on a rotational basis among the members of the three families.

¶8Thus, this order is one which has been passed under sub-section (6) of Section 25-B of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 which is amenable to a

Appellate remedy under Sub-section (7) of Section 25 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997.

¶9Reserving the right to the petitioner to avail the said appellate remedy, the petition stands disposed of.

Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

SR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58