- 1 - NC: 2026:KHC:28114 WP No. 8906 of 2025 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 8906 OF 2025 (GM-R/C) BETWEEN: 1. MR VARADAIAH S/O HANUMANTHAIA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, NO. 4, NIRUVAGAL, NIRUVAGAL POST, HANDANAKERE HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANA HALLI TUMKUR-572 119 2. SRI. BASAVACHAR S/O RAMACHAR, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, NARUVAGAL, NARUVAGAL POST, HANDANA KERE HOBLI, VTC: CHIKKANAYAKANA HALLI TUMKUR-572 214 Digitally signed by SHWETHA 3. MR. N L JAYARAJU RAGHAVENDRA S/O LAKKAPPA Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, COURT OF HARENAHALLI, KARNATAKA CHOWLKATTE POST, HANDANAKERE HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANA HALLI TUMKUR-572 119 4. SRI. ANJANAPPA N J S/O JAYANNA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, NIRUVAGAL, HANDANAKERE HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:28114 WP No. 8906 of 2025 HC-KAR TUMKUR-572 214 5. SRI. OMKARAMURTHY S/O MAHALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, NIRUVAGAL, CHIKKANAYAKAHALLI, TUMKUR-572 119 6. MR. KALLESH S/O LAKKAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, NIRVAGAL POST, HANDANAKERE HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANALLI, TUMKUR-572 119 7. SRI. LOKESH T K S/O KARIYA NALKA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, T THANDYA, BARAGURU POST, HANDANAKERE HOBALI CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TUMKUR-572 214 8. SRI. RANGAIAH S/O NAGAIAH AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, NARUVAGAL POST, HANDANA KERE HOOBALI, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TUMKUR-572 214 9. SRI. GOPIKRISHNA N.K.

S/O KRISHNAMURTHY N.L., AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, POST: NIRUVAGAL VILLAGE, HANDANAKERE HOBLI CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI - 572 119 TUMKUR DISTRICT. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VEERESH M. UPPIN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI CHANDRANATH ARIGA K., ADVOCATE) - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:28114 WP No. 8906 of 2025 HC-KAR AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS EX-OFFICIO SECRETRARY RAJAYA DHARMIKA PARISHAD CHAMRAJPET BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE PRESCRIBED OFFICER AND SUB-REGISTRAR, OLD TALUK OFFICE CHIKKANAYAKANA HALLI, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, TUMKUR DIST-572 114 3. THE TAHASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, MUZRAI DEPARTMENT, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI, TUMKUR DIST-572 114 4. SHREE DURGAMMA DEVALAYA TRUST (EARLIER KNOWN AS SHREE DURGAMMA DEVASTHANA JEERNODHARA SEVA CHARITABLE TRUST) HAVING ITS OFFICE AT HULKAL BETTA, NIRUVAGAL, HANDANAKERE HOBLI, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 214 REPRESENTED TRUSTEE … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DEVARAJ, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) DIRECTING THE R1 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 03/03/2020 (ANNEXURE - J) AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:28114 WP No. 8906 of 2025 HC-KAR CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

a. Directing the Respondent No.1 to consider the Representation of the Petitioner dated: 03.03.2020 (ANNEXURE-J); b. Declare the Temple as a Declared Institution under the provisions of the Karnataka Religious and charitable Endowments Act. c. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deem fit to grant. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the representation of the petitioner dated 03.03.2020 at Annexure-J for declaration of the temple as a “declared institution” under the Provisions of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 has not been considered, despite a lapse of nearly 6 years. 3. Whenever any representation has been submitted by a citizen to any authority, it is required that the said Representation be acted upon and necessary orders be passed within a reasonable period of time, either - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:28114 WP No. 8906 of 2025 HC-KAR accepting or rejecting the Representation submitted, in accordance with law. 4. Needless to say, if an order of rejection is passed, the same would have to be accompanied by reasons. Neither having been done, this Court passes the following; ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. A mandamus is issued, directing respondent No.1 to consider the representation of petitioner dated 03.03.2020 at Annexure-J in accordance with law within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

iii. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the entitlement of the petitioner. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34

- 1 - NC: 2026:KHC:28114 WP No. 8906 of 2025 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 8906 OF 2025 (GM-R/C) BETWEEN: 1. MR VARADAIAH S/O HANUMANTHAIA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, NO. 4, NIRUVAGAL, NIRUVAGAL POST, HANDANAKERE HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANA HALLI TUMKUR-572 119 2. SRI. BASAVACHAR S/O RAMACHAR, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, NARUVAGAL, NARUVAGAL POST, HANDANA KERE HOBLI, VTC: CHIKKANAYAKANA HALLI TUMKUR-572 214 Digitally signed by SHWETHA 3. MR. N L JAYARAJU RAGHAVENDRA S/O LAKKAPPA Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, COURT OF HARENAHALLI, KARNATAKA CHOWLKATTE POST, HANDANAKERE HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANA HALLI TUMKUR-572 119 4. SRI. ANJANAPPA N J S/O JAYANNA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, NIRUVAGAL, HANDANAKERE HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:28114 WP No. 8906 of 2025 HC-KAR TUMKUR-572 214 5. SRI. OMKARAMURTHY S/O MAHALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, NIRUVAGAL, CHIKKANAYAKAHALLI, TUMKUR-572 119 6. MR. KALLESH S/O LAKKAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, NIRVAGAL POST, HANDANAKERE HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANALLI, TUMKUR-572 119 7. SRI. LOKESH T K S/O KARIYA NALKA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, T THANDYA, BARAGURU POST, HANDANAKERE HOBALI CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TUMKUR-572 214 8. SRI. RANGAIAH S/O NAGAIAH AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, NARUVAGAL POST, HANDANA KERE HOOBALI, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TUMKUR-572 214 9. SRI. GOPIKRISHNA N.K.

S/O KRISHNAMURTHY N.L., AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, POST: NIRUVAGAL VILLAGE, HANDANAKERE HOBLI CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI - 572 119 TUMKUR DISTRICT. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VEERESH M. UPPIN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI CHANDRANATH ARIGA K., ADVOCATE) - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:28114 WP No. 8906 of 2025 HC-KAR AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS EX-OFFICIO SECRETRARY RAJAYA DHARMIKA PARISHAD CHAMRAJPET BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE PRESCRIBED OFFICER AND SUB-REGISTRAR, OLD TALUK OFFICE CHIKKANAYAKANA HALLI, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, TUMKUR DIST-572 114 3. THE TAHASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, MUZRAI DEPARTMENT, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI, TUMKUR DIST-572 114 4. SHREE DURGAMMA DEVALAYA TRUST (EARLIER KNOWN AS SHREE DURGAMMA DEVASTHANA JEERNODHARA SEVA CHARITABLE TRUST) HAVING ITS OFFICE AT HULKAL BETTA, NIRUVAGAL, HANDANAKERE HOBLI, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 214 REPRESENTED TRUSTEE … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DEVARAJ, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) DIRECTING THE R1 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 03/03/2020 (ANNEXURE - J) AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:28114 WP No. 8906 of 2025 HC-KAR CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

a. Directing the Respondent No.1 to consider the Representation of the Petitioner dated: 03.03.2020 (ANNEXURE-J); b. Declare the Temple as a Declared Institution under the provisions of the Karnataka Religious and charitable Endowments Act. c. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deem fit to grant. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the representation of the petitioner dated 03.03.2020 at Annexure-J for declaration of the temple as a “declared institution” under the Provisions of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 has not been considered, despite a lapse of nearly 6 years. 3. Whenever any representation has been submitted by a citizen to any authority, it is required that the said Representation be acted upon and necessary orders be passed within a reasonable period of time, either - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:28114 WP No. 8906 of 2025 HC-KAR accepting or rejecting the Representation submitted, in accordance with law. 4. Needless to say, if an order of rejection is passed, the same would have to be accompanied by reasons. Neither having been done, this Court passes the following; ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. A mandamus is issued, directing respondent No.1 to consider the representation of petitioner dated 03.03.2020 at Annexure-J in accordance with law within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

iii. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the entitlement of the petitioner. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34