Sri Sheshachala B v. The Commissioner for

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 25233 OF 2026 (GM-R/C) BETWEEN:

SRI SHESHACHALA B S/O. LATE SRI. DODDA POOJAR BHEEMAPPA, AGE 49 YEARS, R/O. MANCHI VILLAGE, UDRI POST, KASABA HOBALI, SORABA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577433.

PETITIONER (BY SRI. K CHANDRANATH ARIGA.,ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1THE COMMISSIONER FOR KARNATAKA HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS, 4TH FLOOR, SRI. MINTO ANJANEYA BHAVANA, ALURU VENKATARAO ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU 560018.

¶2THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, SHIVAMOGGA 577201.

¶3THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SAGARA SUB DIVISION, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577401.

by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶4THE TAHSILDAR, SORABA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577429.

¶5SRI. BEEMAPPA, S/O. SRI. GUTYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O. SAGARA SUB DIVISION, SAGARA, SORABA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 577433.

RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NITHIN M., FOR C/R5 (CP.NO.17411/2026); SRI. PANINI A.H., AGA FOR R1 TO R4)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (I) QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08/07/2026 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN APPEAL BEARING NO.ADM FOR KARNATAKA HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE 7/AP/15/2025-26 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC,.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

ORAL ORDER

¶1Learned AGA accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 to

4.

¶2Learned counsel Sri. Nithin.M, who has filed caveat, accepts notice for respondent No.5.

¶3The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

"Wherefore, the petitioner respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:

i) Issue a writ of certiorari or such other appropriate writ or order or direction quashing the impugned order dated 08.07.2026 passed by the 1st respondent - the commissioner for Karnataka Hindu religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments at Bengaluru in Appeal bearing No.ADM.7/AP/15/2025-26 vide Annexure-A, in the interest of justice and equity.

ii) Issue a writ of certiorari or such other appropriate writ or order of direction quashing the order dated

15.09.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent - Deputy Commissioner, Shivamogga District, Shivamogga, in case No.SMGDC-DVS-43/2021-22 (74947) vide Annexure-B in the interest of justice and equity.

iiii) Issue such other appropriate writ or order or directions, as deemed to fit under the facts and circumstance of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶4The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 08.07.2026 at Annexure-A is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

¶5The submission of learned counsel Sri. K. Chandranath Ariga, appearing for the petitioner is that in the Whats app group though unofficial on which the case workers post messages informing all the lawyers about the holding or not holding of sittings and such other communications as may be relevant to the stakeholders. It had been communicated that there would be no sitting on

08.07.2026 and on that ground he submits that there could not have been an order pronounced on

08.07.2026.

¶6The submission of learned counsel for respondent No.5 has also learned AGA, is that the communication which had been posted on the Whats app group was that RDP cases there would be no sitting. On that basis they contend that, the said message would not apply to ADM cases which were separately listed for pronouncement of orders.

¶7The message which has been posted on the Whats app group, though, indicating that RDP cases no sitting would be there, there is no specific reference that for the other matters there would be a sitting and the matter would be taken up. It is required for all communications addressed by the quasi-judicial authorities to be clear so as to enable the parties to understand the said message and do the needful.

¶8Though, it could be contented that the setting aside of the order would be empty formality in as much as respondent No.1 could again post the matter for orders and pronounce the same orders what is required to be considered is that when things are required to be done by judicial or by quasi-judicial authorities in a particular manner, it should be done in that particular manner. Once a information had been communicated that there would be no sitting, there could not have been a sitting held and the

order pronounced. As such this Court passes the following: ORDER

i) The petition is allowed.

ii) A certiorari is issued, the order dated

08.07.2026 at Annexure-A is quashed.

iii) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

iv) It would be for the Commissioner to post the matters on the date on which the sitting is there and to pronounce such orders as he wishes to pronounce.

Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

PNV - List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6