SHRI. VARADARAJA BHATTAR vs THE MINISTER FOR EXCISE AND MUZRAI
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 35902 OF 2013 (GM-R/C)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 33153 OF 2013 (GM-R/C)
WRIT PETITION NO. 8691 OF 2014 (GM-R/C)
WRIT PETITION NO. 12291 OF 2016 (GM-R/C)
WRIT PETITION NO. 8228 OF 2025 (GM-R/C)
IN WP No. 35902/2013
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI VARADARAJA BHATTAR
S/O SHRI. SAMPATH KUMARA BHATTAR,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
RESIDING AT
VANAMAMALAI MUTT STREET
MELKOTE, PANDAVAPURA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT 571431.
PRESENTLY CAMPED AT BANGALORE.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ABHINAV .R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
(DY.COMMISSIONER)
MANDYA DISTRICT,
MANDYA-571401.
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISIONER
PANDAVAPURA SUB-DIVISION,
PANDAVAPURA,
MANDYA DISTRICT.
MANDYA-571401.
3. THE MUJARAI COMMISSIONER
(COMMISSIONER-HINDU CHARITABLE AND
RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT)
OFFICE OF THE MUJRAI COMMISSIONER,
2ND FLOOR, SRI MALAI MAHADESHWARA
VARTHA BHAVAN, ALOORU VENKATARAM ROAD,
CHAMARAJAPET, BANGALORE-18.
4. THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF
SRI CHALUVANARAYANASWAMY TEMPLE,
SRI CHALUVANARAYANASWAMY TEMPLE,
MELOKOTE, PANDAVAPURA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571434.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
5. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF
SRI CHALUVANARAYANASWAMY TEMPLE,
MELKOTE, PANDAVAPURA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571434.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
6. SRI S N SRINIVAS NARASIMHAN
S/O NAGARAJA IYENGAR,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF MELKOTE,
PANDAVAPURA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRCT-571434.
7. SRI KRISHNASWAMI BHAT
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
S/O. NARASIMHA BHAT,
ARCHAK OF AMMANAVARA SANNIDHI,
MELKOTE CHELUVANARAYANA SWAMY TEMPLE,
MELKOTE, PANDAVAPURA TALUK,
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
MANDYA DISTRICT-571434.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH RAYAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. AJAY .J.N, ADVOCATE FOR R6;
SRI. S.N. PRASHANTH CHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR
IMPLEADING APPLICANT ON I.A.1/2016;
R4, R5 AND R7 ARE SERVED)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.07.2013 ISSUED BY THE R-1
(VIDE ANNEXURE-A) UNDER WHICH THE PETITIONER HAS
BEEN DISLOCATED FROM THE BARABARDH ARCHAKSHIP OF
SRI. CHALUVANARAYANASWAMY SANNIDHI OF
SRI.CHALUVANARAYANASWAMY TEMPLE, MELKOTE AND THE
R-7 AND HIS BROTHERS HAVE BEEN POSTED AS TEMPORARY
IN-CHARGE ARCHAKS; AND ETC.
IN WP NO. 33153/2013
BETWEEN:
1. SRI B.V. ANANDALWAR
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
S/O B V NARASIMHACHAR
ARCHAK, SRI RAMNUJACHARYA SANNIDHI,
SRI NARAYANA SWAMI TEMPLE
R/AT # 327, RAJA STREET
MELKOTE, PANDAVAPURA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571431.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. AJAY .J.N, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
RELIGIOUS AND ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA-571401.
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
3. EXECUTIVE OFFICER
CHELUVANARAYANASWAMI TEMPLE
MELKOTE, PANDAVAPURA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571431.
4.
5.
KRISHNASWAMI BHAT
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
S/O NARASIMHA BHAT
ARCHAKA, AMMANVAR SANNIDHI
MELKOTE, PANDAVAPURA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571431.
SHRI. VARADARAJA BHATTAR
S/O SHRI. SAMPATH KUMARA BHATTAR
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT VANAMAMALAI MUTT STREET
MELKOTE, PANDAVAPURA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 431.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V. MANJUNATH RAYAPPA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. ABHINAV .R, ADVOCATE FOR R5;
R4 SERVED)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.7.2013 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED
BY THE R-2 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE APPOINTMENT
OF THE R-4 AS AN ARCHAK AT SRI.NARAYANA SWAMI
SANNIDHI IN CHELUVANARAYANA SWAMY TEMPLE, MELKOTE;
AND ETC.
IN WP NO. 8691/2014
BETWEEN:
1. SRI B V ANANDALWAR
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
S/O B V NARASIMHACHAR,
ARCHAK,SRI RAMNUJACHARYA SANNIDHI,
SRI NARAYANASWAMI TEMPLE,
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
R/AT # 327, RAJA STREET,
MELKOTE, PANDAVAPURA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 431.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. AJAY.J.N, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS,
VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE
ENDOWMENTS
IN THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
2ND FLOOR, SHRI MALAI MAHADESHWARA
VARTHA BHAVAN, CHAMARAJPET,
BANGALORE-560 018.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA-571 401.
4. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
PANDAVAPURA SUB-DIVISION,
MANDYA DISTRICT.
5. EXECUTIVE OFFICER
CHELUVANARAYANASWAMI TEMPLE,
MELKOTE, PANDAVAPURA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 431.
6. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
MANDYA DISTRICT,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 431
7. S. VARADARAJA BHATTAR
S/O SHRI SAMPATH KUMAR BHATTAR,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/AT VANAMAMALAI MUTT STREET,
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
MELKOTE-571 431
PANDAVAPURA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V. MANJUNATH RAYAPPA, AGA FOR R1-R6;
SRI. ABHINAV .R, ADVOCATE FOR C/R7)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
COMMUNICATION DATED 10.2.2014 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE
ANNEXURE-A; AND ETC.
IN WP NO. 12291/2016
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. VARADARAJA BHATTAR
S/O SHRI SAMPATH KUMARA BHATTAR
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
RESIDING AT VANAMAMALAI MUTT STREET
MELUKOTE, PANDAVAPURA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 431.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ABHINAV .R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE MINISTER FOR EXCISE AND MUZRAI
NO.234/235, 2ND FLOOR,
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT (MUZRAI)
M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE MUJARAI COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER-HINDU CHARITABLE
AND RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT
OFFICE OF THE MUJRAI COMMISSIONER
2ND FLOOR, SRI MALAI MAHADESHWARA
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
VARTHA BHAVANA, ALOORU VENKATARAM ROAD
CHAMRAJAPET, BENGALURU-560018.
4. THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
(DEPUTY COMMISIONER)
AND ADMINISTRATOR
SRI CHELUVARANARAYANASWAMY TEMPLE
MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA-571401.
5. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
PANDAVAPURA SUB-DIVISION,
PANDAVAPURA, MANDYA DISTRICT
MANDYA-571401.
6. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF
SRI CHALUVANARAYANASWAMY TEMPLE
MELOKOTE, PANDAVAPURA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571434.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V. MANJUNATH RAYAPPA, AGA FOR R1 TO R6;
SRI. S.N. PRASHANTH CHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR
IMPLEADING APPLICANT ON IA 3/16)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ADMINISTRATIVE INSTRUCTION/NOTE DATED 23.12.2015 AT
ANNEXURE-M ISSUED BY R-1; AND ETC.
IN WP NO. 8228/2025
BETWEEN:
1. S.N. SRINIVAS NARASIMHAN
SON OF NAGARAJ IYENGAR,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 3, RAJA STREET,
MELKOTE, SRI CHELUVARAYA SWAMY DEVASTHANA,
MELUKOTE, PANDAVAPURA TALUK
MANDYA 571 431.
...PETITIONER
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
(BY SRI. AJAY J.N. AND AJAY J. NANDALIKE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
THE ENDOWMENT COMMISSIONER,
HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION
AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
PARK ROAD 2, PES COLLEGE CAMPUS,
NEAR DISTRICT COURT, MANDYA DISTRICT,
MANDYA - 571 401.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
GVFJ+3M5, PES COLLEGE CAMPUS,
MANDYA, PANDAVAPURA SUB-DIVISION
MANDYA - 571 401.
4. THE TAHSILDAR,
THASILDAR OFFICE,
PANDAVAPURA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 434.
5. EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
SRI CHELUVARAYA SWAMY TEMPLE,
MELUKOTE, PANDAVAPURA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 431.
6. SRI S. NARASARAJA BHATTAR,
S/O. SRI SAMPATH KUMAR BHATTAR,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
RESIDING AT VANAMAMALAI MUTT STREET,
MELUKOTE, PANDAVAPURA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 431.
7. SRI VARADARAJA BHATTAR,
S/O. SRI SAMPATH KUMAR BHATTAR,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
RESIDING AT VANAMAMALAI MUTT STREET,
MELUKOTE, PANDAVAPURA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 431.
8. RANGARAJA BHATTAR,
S/O. SRI SAMPATH KUMAR BHATTAR
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
RESIDING AT VANAMAMALAI MUTT STREET
MELUKOTE, PANDAVAPURA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 431.
9. RAMARIYA BHATTAR,
S/O. SRI SAMPATH KUMAR BHATTAR,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
RESIDING AT VANAMAMALAI MUTT STREET,
MELUKOTE, PANDAVAPURA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 431.
10. KESHAVA BHATTAR,
S/O. SRI SAMPATH KUMAR BHATTAR,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
RESIDING AT VANAMAMALAI MUTT STREET,
MELUKOTE, PANDAVAPURA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 431.
11. YOGANANDA BHATTAR
S/O. SRI SAMPATH KUMAR BHATTAR,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
RESIDING AT VANAMAMALAI MUTT STREET,
MELUKOTE, PANDAVAPURA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 431.
12. COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT
CONSTITUTED UNDER SECTION 16 OF
THE RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION AND CHARITABLE
ENDOWMENTS ACT, 1997
SRI CHELUVARAYA SWAMY TEMPLE,
MELUKOTE, PANDAVAPURA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 431
REP. BY ITS TRUSTEES.
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH RAYAPPA, AGA FOR R1 TO R5 AND R12;
SRI. ABHINAV .R, ADVOCATE FOR R7;
V/O DATED 01.04.2025, NOTICE TO R6, R8, R9 AND R10
IS HELD SUFFICIENT;
R6, R8 AND R9 SERVED;
R10 – REFUSED TO RECEIVE HAND SUMMONS;
R11 – SERVED BY WAY OF HAND SUMMONS)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
INQUIRY REPORT DATED 13.03.2025 BEARING PROCEEDING
NO. DVS.22/2009-10 IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A; AND
ETC.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR DICTATING
ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
These batch of petitions pertain to the post of
Archaka attached to the main Sannidhi of Sri
Cheluvanarayana Swamy Temple. Since the petitions arise
out of the same factual matrix, involve overlapping issues
and the reliefs sought therein are interlinked, they are
taken up together and are disposed of by this common
order.
2. Brief facts of the case:
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
2(a) The undisputed factual background is that one
Narasaraja Bhattar was functioning as Archaka of the main
Sannidhi of Sri Cheluvanarayana Swamy Temple.
Following a complaint alleging, inter alia,
theft/misappropriation of golden ornaments belonging to
the Temple, he was placed under suspension.
2(b) The petitioner in W.P.No.35902/2013, namely,
Varadaraja Bhattar, is the younger brother of Narasaraja
Bhattar. His claim was that, being a member of the
Archaka family and having hereditary entitlement to
discharge the duties of Archaka, he was entitled to hold
charge of the main Sannidhi during the period during
which his elder brother was under suspension. Initially,
charge was entrusted to him. However, subsequently,
under the communication impugned as Annexure-A in
W.P.No.35902/2013, the competent authorities resolved
not to permit him to continue to discharge the duties of
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
Archaka. Aggrieved by the said communication,
Varadaraja Bhattar approached this Court.
2(c) Consequent upon the aforesaid communication,
the official respondents appointed one Krishna Swamy as
in-charge Archaka of the main Sannidhi. The said
appointment was questioned by one B.V. Anand Alwar in
W.P.No.33153/2013. In the said proceedings, Varadaraja
Bhattar was arrayed as respondent No.5.
2(d) In W.P.No.35902/2013, this Court, by interim
order dated 12.08.2013, directed the official respondents
to permit Varadaraja Bhattar to discharge his duties as
Archaka of the main Sannidhi. The matter thereafter came
up for further consideration and, by order dated
17.01.2014, consequential directions came to be issued.
Pursuant thereto, the competent authority passed an order
permitting Varadaraja Bhattar to perform the duties of
Archaka and directed the Deputy Commissioner to
implement the same. The Deputy Commissioner, in turn,
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
issued consequential communications to the Assistant
Commissioner and the Temple authorities for handing over
charge to Varadaraja Bhattar.
2(e) The aforesaid consequential communications,
issued pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court,
are questioned by B.V. Anand Alwar in W.P.No.8691/2014.
2(f) Thereafter, Varadaraja Bhattar instituted
W.P.No.12291/2016 questioning the official
notes/communications issued by the then Minister,
produced as Annexures-M and O, whereby
directions/recommendations were made to appoint B.V.
Anand Alwar as Archaka of the main Sannidhi. According
to Varadaraja Bhattar, such directions were contrary to the
orders already passed by this Court in W.P.No.35902/2013
and the consequential orders issued by the competent
authorities pursuant thereto.
2(g) In the meanwhile, on the basis of a complaint
lodged by one Srinivasa Narasimhan, a former District
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
Judge was appointed as a fact-finding authority to enquire
into the allegations relating to the affairs of the Temple
and the alleged disappearance of golden ornaments.
Independently, a domestic enquiry was also initiated
against Narasaraja Bhattar.
2(h) The domestic enquiry ultimately culminated in
an order exonerating Narasaraja Bhattar of the charges
levelled against him. The said order dated 13.03.2025 is
assailed by Srinivasa Narasimhan in W.P.No.8228/2025.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners,
placing reliance upon the convenience compilation, has
taken this Court through the report submitted by the
retired District Judge. According to him, the said report
does not substantiate the allegations levelled against
Narasaraja Bhattar and, in substance, exonerates him
from the allegations concerning the alleged theft or
disappearance of the Temple ornaments.
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
4. Learned counsel has also referred to FIR
No.118/2013 registered for offences punishable under
Sections 406, 408 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(for short ‘IPC’). He submits that, upon investigation, the
Investigating Officer submitted a ‘B’ report in respect of
the allegations concerning theft of golden ornaments.
5. Reference is also made to the subsequent
complaint which resulted in registration of FIR No.23/2015
for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 380
of IPC, wherein allegations were again levelled against
Narasaraja Bhattar concerning the alleged theft of 42
golden ornaments belonging to the Temple. Learned
counsel points out that even in the said proceedings, the
Investigating Officer submitted a ‘C’ report.
6. Learned counsel would submit that Sri
Cheluvanarayana Swamy Temple is the principal Temple
and that, apart from the main deity, there are other
deities within the Temple premises, each having its own
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
Archaka arrangement. According to him, the appointment
of Archakas is governed by the applicable Temple manual
and the established hereditary arrangement. It is therefore
contended that B.V. Anand Alwar, who is stated to be an
Archaka attached to the Ramanujacharya deity within the
Temple premises, cannot claim any right to the office of
Archaka of the main Sannidhi of Sri Cheluvanarayana
Swamy.
7. Learned counsel would further contend that the
allegations relating to the theft of the Temple ornaments
have not been substantiated either in the criminal
investigation or in the fact-finding exercise conducted by
the retired District Judge. The complainant, according to
learned counsel, therefore has no locus to challenge the
order passed in the domestic enquiry exonerating
Narasaraja Bhattar.
8. It is also submitted that the complainant had
not pursued the protest proceedings in relation to the first
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
complaint which had resulted in registration of FIR
No.118/2013. On this premise, it is contended that the
subsequent challenge to the order of exoneration is lacking
in bona fides and cannot be entertained in writ jurisdiction.
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
complainant as well as B.V. Anand Alwar has filed a
detailed synopsis and taken this Court through the
material on record. It is contended that Varadaraja Bhattar
was permitted to discharge the duties of Archaka only by
misconstruing the interim orders passed by this Court in
W.P.No.35902/2013.
10. Learned counsel would submit that the orders
dated 12.08.2013 and 17.01.2014 did not adjudicate upon
the substantive hereditary entitlement of Varadaraja
Bhattar to hold the office of Archaka. According to him,
the interim orders could not have been treated as
conferring a substantive right to the office, nor could they
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
have been understood as determining the question of
eligibility in favour of Varadaraja Bhattar.
11. Insofar as the order exonerating Narasaraja
Bhattar is concerned, learned counsel places considerable
reliance upon the observations and conclusions recorded
by the Deputy Commissioner at an earlier stage, wherein
Narasaraja Bhattar was prima facie found to be involved in
the irregularities concerning the Temple ornaments and
directions were issued for conducting an enquiry into the
matter.
12. Learned counsel has also referred to the
material concerning the Vajarangi ornament. According to
him, the material placed on record discloses that the donor
had handed over the ornament to Narasaraja Bhattar and
Rangaraja Bhattar at the Temple. It is argued that the
statement of the donor itself discloses that the ornament
had been received by the Archakas without proper
authority.
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
13. Reference is also made to the notice dated
31.07.2009 issued by the Executive Officer to Narasaraja
Bhattar concerning the alleged unauthorised placement of
jewellery on the deity and to the subsequent
communications indicating that the Vajarangi jewellery of
Sri Cheluvanarayana Swamy was found missing.
14. On the strength of the aforesaid material,
learned counsel would contend that there was sufficient
material warranting a proper and effective domestic
enquiry against Narasaraja Bhattar. According to him, the
enquiry was concluded with undue haste immediately after
Narasaraja Bhattar tendered his written arguments and,
consequently, the order dated 13.03.2025 exonerating
him is vitiated by non-application of mind, arbitrariness
and violation of the principles of natural justice.
15. While addressing the challenge in
W.P.No.33153/2013, learned counsel fairly submits that
the appointment of Krishna Swamy as in-charge Archaka
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
has, by passage of time and in view of the subsequent
orders passed by this Court, lost its practical significance.
Nevertheless, it is contended that Varadaraja Bhattar
himself was not eligible to be appointed as Archaka since,
according to the Temple’s established arrangement,
Narasaraja Bhattar and Rangaraja Bhattar alone had been
appointed as Archakas of the main Sannidhi.
16. It is therefore contended that the younger
brother of Narasaraja Bhattar could not claim a hereditary
right merely by virtue of his relationship with the existing
Archaka. On these grounds, learned counsel seeks
dismissal of the petitions filed by Varadaraja Bhattar and
contends that the order dated 13.03.2025 impugned in
W.P.No.8228/2025 is liable to be set aside.
17. In view of the rival submissions and the nature
of the reliefs sought in the respective petitions, the
following points arise for consideration:
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
(i) Whether the petitioner in W.P.No.35902/2013,
namely, Varadaraja Bhattar, can claim a hereditary or
other legally enforceable right to discharge the duties of
Archaka of the main Sannidhi of Sri Cheluvanarayana
Swamy Temple?
(ii) Whether the interim orders dated 12.08.2013 and
17.01.2014 passed in W.P.No.35902/2013 conferred, or
could legitimately be understood as conferring, any
substantive right upon Varadaraja Bhattar to hold the
office of Archaka of the main Sannidhi?
(iii) Whether the consequential
orders/communications issued by the official respondents
permitting Varadaraja Bhattar to discharge the duties of
Archaka pursuant to the aforesaid interim orders are
sustainable in law?
(iv) Whether B.V.Anand Alwar (petitioner in
W.P.No.33153/2013) has any enforceable right or locus to
seek appointment as Archaka of the main Sannidhi of Sri
Cheluvanarayana Swamy Temple, having regard to his
alleged appointment as Archaka of another deity within
the Temple premises?
(v) Whether the appointment of Krishna Swamy as
in-charge Archaka, impugned in W.P.No.33153/2013,
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
survives for consideration in view of the subsequent orders
passed by this Court and the consequential developments?
(vi) Whether the official notes/communications
issued by the then Minister directing/recommending
appointment of B.V. Anand Alwar as Archaka of the main
Sannidhi, impugned in W.P.No.12291/2016, could confer
any legal right or authority upon him to claim the said
office?
(vii) Whether the order dated 13.03.2025
exonerating Narasaraja Bhattar in the domestic enquiry
suffers from violation of principles of natural justice, non-
application of mind, perversity or any other legal infirmity
warranting interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India?
(viii) Whether the petitioner in W.P.No.8228/2025,
who was the complainant in the proceedings leading to the
domestic enquiry, has the requisite locus to maintain a
writ petition challenging the order of exoneration passed
against Narasaraja Bhattar?
(ix) Whether the findings recorded in the fact-finding
report of the retired District Judge and/or the outcome of
the criminal investigation culminating in the filing of the
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
‘B’/‘C’ reports have any determinative bearing upon the
validity of the order passed in the domestic enquiry?
(x) Whether any of the impugned
orders/communications warrant interference by this Court
in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India?
Finding on the points for consideration:
18. Before this Court proceeds further, it would be
apposite for this Court to extract the prayer sought in all
the writ petitions. The same are extracted which read as
under:
W.P.No.35902/2013
1) Issue an appropriate writ or order by
quashing the impugned Order dated 16.7.2013
bearing No.DVS(a): 356/2012-13 issued by the
Respondent No.1 (vide Annexure-A to the writ
petition) under which the petitioner has been
dislocated from the Barabardh Archakship of Sri
Chaluvanarayanaswamy Sannidhi of Sri.
Chaluvanarayana Swamy Temple, Melkote and the
Respondent No.7 and his brothers have been
posted as temporary in-charge Archaks; and
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 24 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
1a) Issue an appropriate Writ or order
quashing the direction/communication dated
rd
14.06.2013 given by the 3 Respondent bearing
No.ADM.1/CR/163/2013-14 at Annexure-W to the
Writ Petition.
2) Pass such other orders deemed fit to be
passed in favour of the petitioner in the interest of
justice and equity.”
W.P.No.33153/2013
a) Issue a writ of Certiorari to quash the
impugned order bearing No.DVS(1):356/2012-
2013 dt. 16.07.2013 (Annexure-A) passed by the
nd
2 respondent in so far as it relates to the
th
appointment of the 4 Respondent as an Archak at
Sri Narayana Swami Sannidhi in Cheluvanarayana
Swami Temple, Melkote;
b) And permit the petitioner to perform the
additional duties at Sri Narayana Swami Sannidhi
in Cheluvanarayana Swami Temple, Melkote;
c) And issue a Writ of mandamus directing
nd
the 2 Respondent to appoint the petitioner as an
Archak to perform the additional duties at Sri
Narayana Swami Sannidhi in Cheluvanarayana
Swami temple, Melkote;
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 25 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
d) Pass/issue any other appropriate
writ/order/direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit
to grant under the facts and circumstances of the
case and in the interest of justice.”
W.P.No.8691/2014
i. Issue an appropriate writ an order or
direction quashing the communication bearing
No.ADM 1/CR 850/13-14 dated 10-02-2014 issued
nd
by the 2 respondent. (Annexure-A), in the
interest of justice and equity.
ii. Issue an appropriate writ an order of
direction quashing the communication bearing
No.DVS(1)CR/ 356/2013-14 dated 11-02-2014
rd
issued by the 3 respondent. (Annexure-B), in the
interest of justice and equity.
iii. Issue an appropriate writ an order or
direction quashing the notification bearing
No.SCT:CR:53:2009-10 dated 12-02-2014 issued
th
by the 5 respondent. (Annexure-C), in the
interest of justice and equity.
iv. Pass such other order as this Hon’ble
Court deems fit on the facts and circumstances of
the case, including the award of costs, in the
interest of justice and equity.”
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 26 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
W.P.No.12291/2016
a. A writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing
the Administrative Instruction/Note bearing No.Aa.
Mu. Sa./205/2015 dated 23.12.2015 at Annexure-
st
M issued by the 1 Respondent.
b. A writ in the nature of certiorari quashing
the Administrative Instruction/Note bearing No.Aa.
Mu. Sa./225/2015-16 dated 01.2.2016 at
st
Annexure-O issued by the 1 Respondent.
c. Grant cost/s.
d. Grant such other relief/s as deemed fit by
this Hon’ble Court in the facts and circumstances of
the case.
W.P.No.8228/2025
1. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the
Inquiry Report dated 13.03.2025 bearing
Proceeding No.DVS:22/2009-10 is produced as
Annexure-A.
2. Issue a Writ in the nature of a Mandamus
st
thereby directing the 1 Respondent to act upon
the letter dated 25 February 2016, bearing
nd
No.DVS(1):129/2013-14, passed by the 2
Respondent (Annexure-B); and
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 27 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
3. Consequently Issue a Writ in the nature of
th
a Mandamus thereby directing the 12 Respondent
to initiate an inquiry against Respondents 6 to 11
in respect of all three complaints;
4. Pass any such order/s as this Hon’ble
Court may deem fit in the interests of justice and
equity.”
19. It would be also apposite for this Court to
extract the interim orders dated 12.08.2023 and
17.01.2014 granted in W.P.No.35902/2013. Same are
extracted, which reads as under:
Order dated 12.08.2013
“Learned Government Advocate to accept notice
to respondent Nos.1 to 3. Issue notice to respondent
Nos.4 to 7.
2. List this petition along with Writ Petition
No.33153/2013. The learned Government Advocate to
secure the instructions as to whether the petitioner has
been relieved only of the additional charge which he
was holding, in view of the suspension of the petitioner.
In the mean while it is needless to say that if the
petitioner was carrying out any other functions, other
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 28 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
than the functions which was assigned to him on
suspension of his brother, that portion of the function
shall not be disturbed at this juncture.”
Order dated 17.01.2014
“Learned Government Advocate would submit
that the impugned order itself has made the alternate
arrangement and the prayer made in I.A.No.1/2013 is
without any basis. In any event, this Court by the order
dated 12.08.2013 has already indicated that the nature
of functions assigned to the petitioner would continue to
remain in force.
In that view, there is no need to pass any
separate orders on I.A.No.1/2013. The same stands
disposed of.
List in ‘B’ Group after two weeks. Objections to
the main petition in the meanwhile.”
20. It would be also apposite for this Court to
extract the operative portion of the report submitted by
the Former District Judge.
“1. ವ ಾಂ
ಆಭರಣದಯ ನ 800 ಾಂ ಅಥಾ ಎ ೆ ೕ ಾಂ
ಕ"#$ಾ
ಲ.
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 29 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
2. ವ ಾಂ
ಆಭರಣ, ಹವಳದ ಸರಗಳ ಅನ,ೕಕೃತ /ಾರ0ೆೆ ಆ
ನ
ಅಚ2ಕ3ಾದ 4ೕ ನರಸ3ಾಜಭ6 7ಾರಣರು, ಅವರ ದುನ2ಡ:ೆ ಎದು;
7ಾಣುತ</ೆ.
3. /ೇಾ>ಾ?ನದ ದು3ಾಡ@ತ7ೆA ಆ
ನ 7ಾಯ2Bಾ2ಹಕ
ಅ,7ಾC$ಾದ 4ೕ DೆE ಎF. ಹನುಮಂತಪIನವರು 7ಾರಣ3ಾ
/ಾ;3ೆ.
ಅವರು ತ ªÀÄä ದುನ2ಡ:ೆಯನು ಪದ42J/ಾ;3ೆ.
4. ಎರಡು ಹವಳದ ಸರಗಳL 7ಾM$ಾ
ಲ BತN/ಾರ0ೆಯ ಇೆ.”
21. It would be also apposite for this Court to
extract the relevant portion of the ‘B’ report. The same
reads as under:
“QRಾಂಕ 14.07.2009 ರಂದು ವ ಾಂ
ಆಭರಣಗಳನು
/ೇವ>ಾ?ನದ ಕUೇCೆ /ಾನ 7ೊWಾ ಗ, /ಾBಯು ಎಷು ತೂಕದ ಆಭರಣವನು
/ಾನ BೕಡುY</ಾ;3ೆ. /ಾನ BೕಡುY<ರುವ ಆಭರಣಗಳ ZೌಲN ಎ\ /ೆ ಎಂಬ
^ವರಗಳನು /ೇಾಲಯದ ಅಂQನ 7ಾಯ2Bಾ2ಹಕ ಅ,7ಾCಯವರು
/ಾB_ಂದ ಪ`ೆQಲ. ನಂತರಾದರೂ ಸಹ /ಾBಗಳ ಸಮaಮ ಸದC
ಆಭರಣಗಳನು ತೂಕ Zಾ"J ಅದರ ZೌಲN ಎ\ /ೆ ಎಂಬುದನು
zÀÈ ಡಪ"J7ೊಂಡು ಈ ^ವರಗಳನು /ೇಾಲಯದ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ
/ಾಖfೆಯ ನಮೂQJ7ೊಳghೇiದು;. ಇದನು ಸಹ Bವ2jಸ/ೆ, ವಾಂ
ಆಭರಣವನು Rೇರಾ
/ಾB_ಂದ ಪ`ೆದು ಈ ಬೆk ರ4ೕY Dಾi ಈ
ರ4ೕYಯ ನಂ. 8048 QRಾಂಕ 14.07.09 4ೕ ಮುರ@, ಜಯನಗರ,
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 30 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
hೆಂಗಳlರು, 4 ೕ ಚಲುವRಾ3ಾಯಣ>ಾmn ಉತpವ ಮೂY2ೆ hೆ@gಯಂ:ೆ
7ಾಣುವ ಒಂದು ರ:ಾಂ
ಕವಚ (ಈ ಕವಚವs hೆ@gಯಂ:ೆ Zಾ" ಅದರ #ೕfೆ
ನದಂ:ೆ ಇರುವ DೊQ7ೆ Zಾ" ಅದ7ೆA ಹರಳLಗಳನು ಕೂ"J/ೆ)
hೆ@gಯಂ:ೆ 7ಾಣುವ ನದಂತಹ fೇಪ Zಾ"/ೆ ಎಂದು ನಮೂQJ
ಆಭರಣವನು JmೕಕCJರು:ಾ<3ೆ. /ಾನ Bೕ"ದ ಆಭರಣವನು ತೂಕ Zಾ"J
ಇದರ ವN:ಾNಸೇRಾದರೂ ಇ/ೆuೕ ಎಂಬುದನು
ಸIಷ ಪ"J7ೊಳgQರುವsದು /ೇಾ>ಾ?ನದ ಅಂQನ 7ಾಯ2Bಾ2ಹ
ಅ,7ಾCಯವರ ದುನ2ಡ:ೆ$ಾ
ರುತ</ೆ. ಸುZಾರು 3 ವಷ2ಗಳ ನಂತರ
vಾಂಡವಪsರ ಉಪ ^wಾಾ,7ಾCಯವರು ವಾಂ
ಆಭರಣದ
ಮರುಪxೕಗದ ಸಂಬಂಧ ^yಾರ0ೆ ನ`ೆJದು;, ಈ ಸಮಯದ >ಾz 4ೕ
ೇ/ಾಮೂ:ಾ2yಾ{ ಎಂಬುವCಂದ ಸದC ಆಭರಣವನು ZೌಲN Zಾಪನ
Zಾ"J ಆಭರಣದ ವN:ಾNಸ^ರುವs/ಾ
Y@Jರು:ಾ<3ೆ.
ವಾಂ
ಆಭರಣದ /ಾB$ಾದ >ಾz 4ೕ ಮುರ@ಜಗRಾ xÀgÀ ವC ೆ
QRಾಂಕ 31.07.2013 ರಂದು ಸದC ಆಭರಣವನು :ೋCJ ಇದರ
$ಾವs/ಾದರೂ ವN:ಾNಸಾ
/ೆ ಎಂಬುದನು ಗುY2ಸುವಂ:ೆ 7ೋCದು;.
ಇವರು ಆಭರಣವನು ಗುY2J ಈ ಆಭರಣವನು 2009ರ :ಾRೇ /ಾನ
Bೕ"ದು; ಇದರ $ಾವs/ೇ ವN:ಾNಸಾ
ಲ. :ಾನು /ಾನ 7ೊ| ದ;
ಸಮಯದ $ಾವ J?Yಯತೂ< ಅ/ೇ J?Yಯ ಈಗಲೂ ಇ/ೆ ಎಂದು
Y@Jರು:ಾ<3ೆ. ಇದCಂದ ವಾಂ
ಆಭರಣದ ರೂಪ Dಾಗೂ ಆ7ಾರದ
$ಾವs/ೇ ವN:ಾNಸಾ
ಲೆಂಬುದು Y@ದು ಬಂQ/ೆ.
QRಾಂಕ 31.08.2012 ರಂದು ಆಭರಣವನು >ಾz 4ೕ
ೇ/ಾಮೂ:ಾ2yಾ{ ಎಂಬುವCಂದ ZೌಲN Zಾಪನ Zಾ"Jದು;, ಇವರ
ವರQಯ ಪ7ಾರ ವಾಂ
ಆಭರಣಗ}ಾದ #ೕfಾಯ, iೕ}ಾಯ ಮತು<
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 31 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
vಾದಗಳL ಒಟು 4769 ಾಂ ತೂಕ^ದು;, ಇದರ ಸುZಾರು 397 ಾಂ
ಬಂಾರ^/ೆ.
QRಾಂಕ 31.07.2013 ರಂದು ಸದC ವಾಂ
ಆಭರಣವನು 4ೕ
ೌತ• ಚಂ€ ರವCಂದ ZೌಲN Zಾಪನ Zಾ"Jದು;, ಈ ಬೆk ಇವರು
QRಾಂಕ 03.08.2013ರಂದು ವರQ Bೕ", ವರQಯ ವಾಂ
ಆಭರಣಗ}ಾದ #ೕfಾಯ, iೕ}ಾಯ ಮತು< vಾದಗಳL ಒಟು 4762 ಾಂ
ತೂಕ^ದು;, ಇದರ ಸುZಾರು 420 ಾಂ ನ^/ೆ ಎಂಬು/ಾ
ನಮೂQJ/ೆ. ಈ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಸದC 4ೕ ೌತ• ಚಂ€ ರವರನು ^yಾರ Zಾ"
Dೇ@7ೆ ಪ`ೆಯfಾ
ಈ ಆಭರಣವನು 3-4 ವಷ2ಗಳ ಒಳೆ Zಾ"ದಂ:ೆ
ಕಂಡು ಬರುತ</ೆ. ಇದನು Dೆಚು‚ ಉಪxೕ
Jಲ. Dೊಸದರಂ:ೆ 7ಾಣುತ</ೆ. ಆ
ಆಭರಣದ ಸವಕ@ ಆ
ಲ. hೆ@g ಬಂಾರ ಕರ
Jಲ. 7ೆ3ೆQರುವ ಬೆk$ಾಗ
Dಾಗೂ ಉƒ„ರುವ ಬೆk$ಾಗ $ಾವs/ೇ ಕುರುಹುಗಳL ಆಭರಣದ ಇಲ.
ಅದರರುವ hೆ@g ಬಂಾರ ಕರ
J :ೆೆದು7ೊಳgಲು ಪಯYJದ; ಅದ7ೆA
ೋ"Jರುವ ಹರಳLಗಳL iತು< ಬರುY<ದ;ವs ಅಥಾ ಸ"ಲಾಗುY<ದ;ವs.
ಇ/ಾNವsದು ಆ
ಲ ಎಂದು Dೇ@7ೆ Bೕ"ರು:ಾ<3ೆ. ಸದC ಆಭರಣಗಳ ಆ7ಾರ7ೆA
$ಾವs/ೇ ಭಂಗಾ
ಲೆಂಬುದು ಇವರ Dೇ@7ೆ_ಂದ Y@ದು ಬಂQ/ೆ.”
x x x x x x
“ವಾಂ
ಆಭರಣ7ೆA ಹರಳLಗಳನು ಕೂCJರುವ 4ೕBಾಸ†
ರವರು ಸಹ ವಾಂ
ಆಭರಣವನು Rೋ" ಗುY2Jದು; ಆಭರಣದ
$ಾವs/ೇ ಬದfಾವ0ೆ$ಾ
ರುವsQಲೆಂದು Dೇ@7ೆ Bೕ"ದು;. ಈ ಬೆk
ಇವರು ಸಹ QRಾಂಕ 09.12.2013 ರಂದು ಪZಾಣ ಪತವನು Bೕ"ರು:ಾ<3ೆ.
ವಾಂ
ಆಭರಣದ ಬಂಾರದ ಪZಾಣದ $ಾವs/ೇ
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 32 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
ವ:ಾNಸ ಾ
ಲೆಂಬುದು ಇವರುಗಳ Dೇ@7ೆಗ@ಂದಲೂ Dಾಗೂ
Dಾಜರ"Jರುವ ಪZಾಣ ಪತQಂದಲೂ Y@ದು ಬಂQರುತ</ೆ.
ZೌಲNZಾಪಕ3ಾದ 4ೕ ೇದಮೂ:ಾ2yಾ{ ಮತು< 4ೕ
«
ೌತ• ಚಂ€ Dಾಗೂ ಆಭರಣ ತ$ಾರಕ3ಾದ 4ೕ ಜ‡ ರವರ ಪ 7ಾರ
ಆಭರಣದ ಒWಾ 3ೆ ತೂಕ ಸmಲI Dೆಚು‚ ಕ"# ಸಮRಾ
/ೆ. 4ೕ
ೇದಮೂ:ಾ2yಾ { ಮತು< 4ೕ ೌತ• ಚಂ€ ರವರುಗಳ ವರQಗೂ Dಾಗೂ
ಆಭರಣ ತ$ಾರಕ3ಾದ 4ೕ ^ಜ‡ ರವರ Dೇ@7ೆಗೂ ಬಂಾರದ
ಪZಾಣದ ವN:ಾNಸ^ದು;. ಈ ಬೆk 4ೕ ^ಜ‡ ರವರು ಆಭರಣದನ
ನದ ಪZಾಣದ $ಾವs/ೇ ವN:ಾNಸಾ
ಲ. ಇದರ 800
ಾಂ
ಂತಲೂ Dೆ‚ನ ಪZಾಣದ ಬಂಾರ^/ೆ ಎಂದು ಪZಾಣ ಪತ
Bೕ"ರುವsದCಂದ ಇದನು ನಂಬಬಹು/ಾ
ರುವsದCಂದ ವಾಂ
ಆಭರಣದನ ನದ ಪZಾಣದ $ಾವs/ೇ ವN:ಾNಸಾ
ಲೆಂಬುದು
Y@ದು ಬರುತ</ೆ.
ಹವಳದ ಸರಗಳನು 4ೕ ರಂಗRಾಯi ಭರದmˆ, ಮುಂhೈರವರ
ಪರಾ
4ೕ ಎF.ಎ† ŠೆಲmRಾ3ಾಯ‹, #ೕಲು7ೋWೆರವCಂದ QRಾಂಕ
31.07.2009 ರಂದು 4ೕ ಚಲುವRಾ3ಾಯಣ>ಾmn /ೇವ>ಾ?ನದ ರ4ೕY ನಂ.
8049 ರ JmೕಕCJ7ೊಂಡು QRಾಂಕ 10.09.2009 ರಂದು hೊಕAಸದ| ದು;
Dಾ /ೇವCೆ BತN/ಾರ0ೆಯ/ೆ. ಇವs 7ಾ0ೆ$ಾ
ಲ.”
22. It would also be apposite to advert to the order
dated 16.07.2013, which is impugned in
W.P.No.33153/2013 and W.P.No.35902/2013. The said
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 33 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
order contains a tabular statement indicating that Sri
Cheluvanarayana Swamy Temple comprises four distinct
Sannidhis, each having a corresponding Archaka appointed
to discharge the duties attached thereto. A perusal of the
said chart reveals that the petitioner, B.V. Anand Alwar, is
appointed as Archaka and Paricharaka of the
Ramanujacharya Sannidhi, whereas the controversy in the
present proceedings pertains to the office of Archaka
attached to the main Sannidhi of Sri Cheluvanarayana
Swamy. This distinction assumes significance in
determining the respective claims of the parties, as the
appointment of Anand Alwar to the Ramanujacharya
Sannidhi does not, by itself, establish any entitlement on
his part to claim appointment as Archaka of the main
Sannidhi. The same is extracted below:
PÀæ.¸ÀA ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ ¸À¤ß¢ü ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
§gÁ§zïð/¸ÀPÁðj
«zÁåºÀðvÉ d£Àä ¢£ÁAPÀ PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀ
ºÀÄzÉÝ
ºÀÄzÉÝ
¢£ÁAPÀ
1.
²æà J¸ï. ªÀgÀzÀgÁd
²æãÁgÁAiÀÄt ¸Áé«Ä
dAn §gÁ§zïð
¥ÁAZÀ gÁvÁæUÀªÀÄ
05.11.1951 07.05.1981
¨sÀlÖgï
¸À¤ß¢ CZÀðPÀgÀÄ
07.05.1981
(
(¥Àæ«Ãt)
jAzÀ)
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 34 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
2.
²æÃ. J£ï. PÀȵÀÚ¸Áé«Ä CªÀÄä£ÀªÀgÀ ¸À¤ß¢ü
§gÁ§zïð
01.10.1941 11.06.2012
¥ÁAZÀ gÁvÁæUÀªÀÄ
CZÀðPÀgÀÄ
04.06.2012
(
jAzÀ)
3.
²æÃ.
²æÃgÁªÀiÁ£ÀÄeÁZÁAiÀÄðgÀ
§gÁ§zïð
28.06.1978 12.10.2002
¸ÀA¸ÀÌçvÀ JA.J
©.«.D£ÀAzÁ¼Áégï
¸À¤ß¢ü CZÀðPÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
10.10.2002
(
¥ÀjZÁgÀPÀgÀÄ
jAzÀ)
4.
²æÃ. J¸ï.£ÁgÁAiÀÄt
²æà AiÉÆÃUÁ £ÀgÀ¹AºÀ
SÁAiÀÄA CZÀðPÀgÀÄ
¥ÁAZÀ gÁvÁæUÀªÀÄ
08.07.1967 21.04.1989
¨sÀlÖgï
¸Áé«Ä ¸À¤ß¢ü CZÀðPÀgÀÄ
20.04.1989
(
(¥ÀæªÀgÀ)
jAzÀ)
(Emphasis Supplied)
23. Since the right claimed by Varadaraja Bhattar
to discharge the duties of Archaka of the main Sannidhi of
Sri Cheluvanarayana Swamy Temple is seriously disputed,
it would be apposite to first examine the contemporaneous
material emanating from the official respondents
themselves. The order impugned in W.P.No.35902/2013,
while considering the competing claims, records the
following:
“ಎ. ಉಪ^wಾ ಾ,7ಾCಗಳL, vಾಂಡವಪsರ ಉಪ^wಾಗ,
:
vಾಂಡವಪsರ ರವರ ಕUೇC ಪತ ¸ÀASÉå r«J¸ï.¹Dgï 252:80-81
QRಾಂಕ 7-5-81ರ ಆ/ೇಶದಂ:ೆ QRಾಂಕ 30.05.1981Cಂದ
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 35 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
4 ೕಚಲುವRಾ3ಾಯ>ಾmn ಸB, ಅಚ2ಕ ಹು/ೆ;ಯು 4ೕ ನರಸ3ಾಜಭಟ {
Dಾಗೂ 4 ೕ ವರದ3ಾಜಭಟ { ರವCಗೂ ಜಂ| ಬ3ಾಬ€2, ಆ
ರುತ</ೆ. ಅಲ /ೆ
$ಾವs/ೇ ಸB,ಯ ಅಚ2ಕರ ಕುಟುಂಬಸ?ರು ಸB,ಯ ಸDಾಯಕ3ಾ
7ೆಲಸ Bವ2jಸಬಹುದು ಎಂಬ •ಾn2ಕ ದY< ಇfಾ•ೆ ಆಯುಕ<ರ ಸು:ೊ<ೕfೆ
ಸಂ•ೆN ಎ"ಎಂ:11:Jಆ{:530:91-92 QRಾಂಕ 28.01.1992 ಆ/ೇಶದ
ಪYಯನು Dಾಗೂ ಇತ3ೆ ಸೂಕ< /ಾಖfೆಗಳನು ಲಗY<ಸfಾ
/ೆ.
4ೕವರದ3ಾಜಭಟ { ರವರು ಅZಾನತು<ೊಂ"ರುವ
4ೕನರಸ3ಾಜಭಟ { ರವರ ಸDೋದರ3ಾ
ರು:ಾ<3ೆ. ಈ ಸB,
j>ೆpೕ/ಾರ3ಾ
ರುವ 4ೕ 3ಾಮ‘ಯ, 4ೕ 7ೇಶವಭಟ , 4ೕ
xೕಾನಂದರವರು ಸಹ ಅƒ2 ಸJರು:ಾ<3ೆ. ಇವರು 4ೕನರಸ3ಾಜಭಟ {
ರವರ ಸಂಬಂ,ಕ3ಾ
ರು:ಾ<3ೆ”.
(Emphasis Supplied)
24. The aforesaid observation assumes considerable
significance. The official record itself refers to the order of
the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pandavapura, dated
07.05.1981, pursuant to which, with effect from
30.05.1981, the Archaka office of Sri Cheluvanarayana
Swamy Sannidhi was treated as being held jointly by Sri
Narasaraja Bhattar and Sri Varadaraja Bhattar. Thus, the
material relied upon by the official respondents does not
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 36 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
support the contention that Varadaraja Bhattar was a
stranger who, for the first time, sought entry into the
office of Archaka merely on account of his relationship with
Narasaraja Bhattar.
25. On the contrary, the aforesaid
contemporaneous official record indicates that Varadaraja
Bhattar was recognised as a joint Archaka of the Sannidhi
along with Narasaraja Bhattar from 30.05.1981. The claim
of Varadaraja Bhattar, therefore, cannot be examined on
the assumption that he was merely seeking appointment
to the office for the first time upon the suspension of his
elder brother. His claim has to be examined in the
backdrop of the aforesaid order and the long-standing
arrangement reflected therein.
26. This position assumes further significance when
considered alongside the official record concerning B.V.
Anand Alwar. The order records:
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 37 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
“J . ಉಪ^wಾ ಾ,7ಾCಗಳL, vಾಂಡವಪsರ ಉಪ^wಾಗ,
vಾಂಡವಪsರ ರವರ ಕUೇC ಪತ ಸಂ•ೆN r«J¸ï.¹Dgï : 76:2002-03
QRಾಂಕ 10.10.2002ರ ಆ/ೇಶದಂ:ೆ QRಾಂಕ 12.10.2002Cಂದ
4 ೕ3ಾZಾನುಾyಾಯ2ರ ಸB,ಯ 4ೕ ’.^.ಆRಾಂ/ಾ}ಾm{ ರವರು
ಅಚ2ಕ ಮತು< ಪCyಾರಕ3ಾ
7ೆಲಸ Bವ2jಸುY<ರು:ಾ<3ೆ. (ಆ/ೇಶ ಪY
ಲಗY<J/ೆ) ಈ ಸB, j>ೆpೕ/ಾರ3ಾ
ರುವ 4ೕ ’.^.3ಾಮ‘ಯರವರು ಸಹ
ಅƒ2 ಸJರು:ಾ<3ೆ.”
27. The aforesaid extract makes the position clear.
B.V. Anand Alwar was appointed as Archaka and
Paricharaka of the Ramanujacharya Sannidhi with effect
from 12.10.2002. Therefore, the official record itself draws
a distinction between the office attached to the main
Sannidhi and the office attached to the Ramanujacharya
Sannidhi.
28. The chart forming part of the order dated
16.07.2013 further indicates that the Temple has distinct
Sannidhis with corresponding Archakas. Anand Alwar’s
appointment is shown against the Ramanujacharya
Sannidhi, whereas the dispute in the present proceedings
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 38 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
concerns the Archaka attached to the main Sannidhi.
Therefore, Anand Alwar cannot claim an automatic right to
the office of Archaka of the main Sannidhi merely because
he is an Archaka within the same Temple complex.
29. This Court, however, hastens to clarify that the
aforesaid finding is not intended to determine any
independent hereditary or statutory right that Anand Alwar
may claim on the basis of any separate material or
governing provision. The finding is confined to the material
presently placed before the Court, which establishes that
his recorded appointment is to the Ramanujacharya
Sannidhi and not to the main Sannidhi.
30. Having considered the rival submissions and the
material placed on record, this Court finds that the
controversy relating to the entitlement of Varadaraja
Bhattar requires to be examined independently of the
subsequent allegations levelled against Narasaraja
Bhattar.
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 39 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
31. The official record, particularly the order of the
Sub-Divisional Officer, Pandavapura, dated 07.05.1981,
assumes significance. The said order records that, with
effect from 30.05.1981, the Archaka office of Sri
Cheluvanarayana Swamy Sannidhi was held jointly by Sri
Narasaraja Bhattar and Sri Varadaraja Bhattar.
32. This contemporaneous official recognition
cannot be brushed aside merely because Varadaraja
Bhattar happens to be the younger brother of Narasaraja
Bhattar. His claim to the office is founded upon an order of
the competent authority made several decades prior to the
present controversy. The subsequent suspension of
Narasaraja Bhattar, therefore, resulted in a dispute as to
the manner in which the duties of the Sannidhi were to be
discharged; it did not, by itself, extinguish the status
earlier recognised in favour of Varadaraja Bhattar.
33. Equally, this Court is unable to accept the
contention that the interim orders dated 12.08.2013 and
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 40 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
17.01.2014 conferred a fresh substantive right upon
Varadaraja Bhattar. The orders are clear in their terms.
This Court was concerned with protecting the existing
arrangement pending consideration of the writ petition. No
final declaration was made concerning hereditary
succession or substantive title to the Archaka office.
34. Consequently, the authorities were required to
understand and implement the said orders within their
limited scope. At the same time, the existence of the
earlier official order recognising Varadaraja Bhattar as
joint Archaka cannot be ignored while determining
whether he had any pre-existing entitlement to discharge
the functions of the Sannidhi.
35. The challenge to Varadaraja Bhattar’s
entitlement, therefore, cannot succeed merely by relying
upon the limited nature of the interim orders. The question
of his status has to be examined with reference to the
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 41 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
underlying official records, and those records prima facie
support his claim to the office of joint Archaka.
CLAIM OF B.V.ANAND ALWAR (petitioner in
W.P.No.33153/2013)
36. The claim of B.V. Anand Alwar stands on a
materially different footing. The very order relied upon by
the parties records that, pursuant to the order of the Sub-
Divisional Officer dated 10.10.2002, Anand Alwar was
functioning, with effect from 12.10.2002, as Archaka and
Paricharaka of the Ramanujacharya Sannidhi.
37. The administrative chart forming part of the
order dated 16.07.2013 further demonstrates that the
Temple comprises different Sannidhis and that
corresponding Archakas have been recognised against
those Sannidhis. The record thus does not support the
proposition that the office of Archaka of one Sannidhi is
interchangeable with that of another.
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 42 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
38. Anand Alwar’s appointment as Archaka of the
Ramanujacharya Sannidhi, therefore, cannot by itself
confer upon him an enforceable right to claim appointment
to the main Sannidhi of Sri Cheluvanarayana Swamy.
39. It is necessary to make one further clarification.
This Court is not called upon in these proceedings to
determine whether Anand Alwar may have any
independent hereditary, statutory or customary claim to
the main Sannidhi based upon some other legally
admissible source. The finding recorded herein is confined
to the material produced before this Court, which
establishes his appointment to the Ramanujacharya
Sannidhi and does not establish any corresponding
appointment to the main Sannidhi.
40. Insofar as W.P.No.33153/2013 is concerned,
the appointment of Krishna Swamy as an in-charge
Archaka was made in the backdrop of the administrative
arrangement following the suspension of Narasaraja
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 43 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
Bhattar. However, the subsequent interim orders passed in
W.P.No.35902/2013 resulted in the authorities permitting
Varadaraja Bhattar to continue with the functions which he
had been discharging.
41. By passage of time, the appointment of Krishna
Swamy as an in-charge Archaka has lost its independent
operative significance. The relief sought against that
appointment has, therefore, substantially worked itself
out. No effective purpose would be served by setting aside
an arrangement which has ceased to operate, particularly
when the parties’ substantive rights are being examined in
the present batch.
42. Consequently, W.P.No.33153/2013 does not
survive for any effective adjudication insofar as it
challenges the temporary arrangement made in favour of
Krishna Swamy.
43. The challenge in W.P.No.8691/2014 is
essentially directed against the consequential
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 44 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
communications issued by the authorities for
implementation of the interim orders passed in
W.P.No.35902/2013. Once it is held that those
communications were consequential to the judicial orders
then operating and that they did not independently create
a substantive hereditary right, no separate interference is
warranted with those communications.
MINISTERIAL DIRECTIONS
44. The petitioner in W.P.No.12291/2016 calls in
question the Administrative Instructions/Notes dated
23.12.2015 and 01.02.2016, whereby directions/
recommendations were made concerning appointment of
B.V. Anand Alwar as Archaka of the main Sannidhi.
45. A Ministerial note or administrative instruction,
by itself, cannot create a substantive right to a hereditary
or religious office where such right is governed by the
applicable statutory provisions, Temple regulations,
established usage or the competent authority’s orders.
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 45 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
46. More importantly, the very record relied upon
by the official respondents shows that Anand Alwar was
functioning as Archaka and Paricharaka of the
Ramanujacharya Sannidhi from 12.10.2002. Therefore, a
mere administrative note could not, without examination
of the governing arrangement and the competing claims,
automatically convert his appointment to one relating to
the main Sannidhi.
47. The impugned notes, therefore, cannot be
treated as conferring any vested right upon Anand Alwar
to the office of Archaka of the main Sannidhi. To that
extent, the petitioner’s challenge is well-founded.
THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST NARASARAJA BHATTAR
48. The more substantial controversy arises in
W.P.No.8228/2025, where the complainant seeks to
challenge the order dated 13.03.2025 whereby Narasaraja
Bhattar came to be exonerated in the domestic enquiry.
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 46 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
49. The Court has carefully examined the material
relied upon by the petitioner, including the report of the
Former District Judge, the material forming part of the
investigation in FIR No.118/2013, the subsequent FIR
No.23/2015 and the orders/reports culminating in the
domestic enquiry.
50. The report of the Former District Judge requires
to be understood in its proper perspective. The report does
contain an adverse observation concerning Narasaraja
Bhattar in relation to the unauthorised adornment of the
Vajarangi ornament on the deity. It also records that his
misconduct in that regard was apparent. However, the
report simultaneously records that the allegation that 800
grams of gold, or any corresponding quantity of gold, had
been removed from the Vajarangi ornament was not
established.
51. The report further records that the two coral
necklaces had not disappeared and continued to be in
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 47 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
daily use. Thus, the report cannot be described as an
unqualified exoneration of every allegation made against
Narasaraja Bhattar. What is material for the present
proceedings is that the gist of the allegation concerning
theft or disappearance of the alleged quantity of gold was
not established in the fact-finding exercise.
52. The same distinction emerges from the
investigation in FIR No.118/2013. The material extracted
from the ‘B’ report shows that the donor, when the
Vajarangi ornament was shown to him, identified it as the
very ornament donated by him and stated that there was
no change in its condition. The investigation also
considered the valuation reports and statements of
persons associated with the ornament. The material did
not establish the alleged removal of the quantity of gold
originally asserted by the complainant.
53. Likewise, the two coral necklaces were traced to
the Temple treasury and were found to be available for
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 48 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
daily use. The allegation of their disappearance, therefore,
did not survive investigation.
54. The subsequent complaint concerning 41 golden
ornaments resulted in registration of FIR No.23/2015. The
Investigating Officer, upon investigation, submitted a ‘C’
report. No material is placed before this Court to
demonstrate that the said report was thereafter displaced
by a judicial determination establishing the alleged theft
against Narasaraja Bhattar.
55. These circumstances do not mean that the filing
of a ‘B’ or ‘C’ report constitutes a judicial declaration of
innocence. Nor does this Court intend to convert the
criminal investigation into an adjudication of the
disciplinary charge. The relevance of these reports is
narrower: they demonstrate that the principal allegations
of theft and disappearance of the Temple ornaments were
investigated and did not culminate in a criminal
prosecution establishing the alleged offences.
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 49 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
56. The domestic enquiry was thereafter conducted
by the competent authority. The Enquiry Officer has
adverted to the material relating to the criminal
investigation, including the ‘B’ report, and has considered
the material available before arriving at the conclusion
favourable to Narasaraja Bhattar.
57. In judicial review, this Court is not required to
undertake a fresh appreciation of evidence as an appellate
authority. Unless the conclusion is based on no evidence,
ignores vital material, takes into account irrelevant
considerations, violates natural justice or is so perverse
that no reasonable authority could have arrived at it,
interference is not warranted.
58. In the present case, none of these
circumstances has been demonstrated. The petitioner may
legitimately contend that the material disclosed
irregularities in the manner in which Temple jewellery was
received, recorded, valued or handled. Indeed, the report
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 50 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
of the Former District Judge contains observations adverse
to Narasaraja Bhattar in that regard. But the existence of
irregularities does not necessarily establish the specific
charge of theft or misappropriation.
59. The distinction is important. The domestic
enquiry was required to determine whether the charges
framed against Narasaraja Bhattar stood proved. It was
not required to proceed on the assumption that, because
there were irregularities in the handling of Temple
jewellery, the allegation of theft necessarily stood
established.
60. On the material available, the Enquiry Officer
has taken a view which is reasonably possible. This Court,
exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution, cannot substitute its own assessment merely
because another view may also be possible.
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 51 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
LOCUS OF THE COMPLAINANT (petitioner in
W.P.No.8228/2025)
61. There is an additional and independent reason
why W.P.No.8228/2025 cannot succeed. The petitioner is
essentially a complainant who brought the allegations to
the notice of the authorities. He has not demonstrated that
he holds any statutory office in the Temple or possesses
any independent legally enforceable right in the
disciplinary proceedings initiated against Narasaraja
Bhattar.
62. A complainant may set the law in motion by
placing relevant information before the competent
authority. But once the competent authority undertakes an
enquiry, the disciplinary proceeding is essentially between
the disciplinary authority and the delinquent. The
complainant does not thereby acquire a right to dictate the
outcome of the disciplinary proceeding or to maintain a
writ petition as an appellate remedy against an order of
exoneration.
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 52 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
63. The position becomes particularly clear in the
present case. The allegations were not ignored. They were
investigated by the criminal agency, examined in the fact-
finding exercise conducted by the Former District Judge
and thereafter considered in the domestic enquiry. The
complainant cannot seek a fourth round of adjudication
merely because the conclusion reached by the competent
authority is not to his liking.
64. Significantly, the petitioner has also not
demonstrated that the protest proceedings relating to the
first complaint were pursued to their logical conclusion so
as to result in a judicial determination contrary to the ‘B’
report. In the absence of such material, the criminal
investigation having culminated in a ‘B’ report remains one
of the relevant circumstances which the Enquiry Officer
was entitled to consider.
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 53 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
65. This Court therefore finds that the petitioner
has failed to establish both locus and substantive grounds
warranting interference with the order dated 13.03.2025.
66. In view of the foregoing discussion, the points
framed for consideration are answered as follows:
Point No.(i): In the ‘ affirmative’ , to the limited
extent that the official record establishes that Varadaraja
Bhattar was recognised as a joint Archaka of the main
Sannidhi along with Narasaraja Bhattar with effect from
30.05.1981. His entitlement cannot be rejected merely on
the ground that he is the younger brother of Narasaraja
Bhattar.
Point No.(ii) : In the ‘ negative’ . The interim orders
dated 12.08.2013 and 17.01.2014 did not confer any fresh
substantive or hereditary right upon Varadaraja Bhattar.
They were interlocutory orders intended to preserve the
existing arrangement.
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 54 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
Point No.(iii): is answered holding that the
consequential communications issued pursuant to the
aforesaid interim orders do not independently confer
substantive title to the Archaka office. However, their
validity cannot be tested on the premise that Varadaraja
Bhattar was a stranger to the office, since the official
record itself recognises his earlier status as joint Archaka.
Point No.(iv): In the ‘ negative’ . The material
placed before this Court establishes that Anand Alwar was
appointed as Archaka and Paricharaka of the
Ramanujacharya Sannidhi. Such appointment, by itself,
does not confer a right to the office of Archaka of the main
Sannidhi.
Point No.(v): In the ‘negative’ . The challenge to
the temporary appointment of Krishna Swamy has become
academic by subsequent events and does not warrant any
effective relief.
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 55 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
Point No.(vi): In the ‘ negative’ . The Ministerial
notes/administrative instructions could not, by
themselves, create or confer a substantive right upon
Anand Alwar to the office of Archaka of the main Sannidhi.
Point No.(vii): In the ‘ negative’ . The order dated
13.03.2025 does not suffer from any demonstrated
violation of natural justice, perversity, non-application of
mind or consideration of irrelevant material warranting
interference in judicial review.
Point No.(viii): In the ‘ negative’ . The complainant
has failed to establish an independent legally enforceable
right or locus to challenge the order of exoneration passed
in the domestic enquiry.
Point No.(ix): In the ‘ affirmative’ . The ‘B’ report,
‘C’ report and the report of the Former District Judge are
not conclusive determinations of the disciplinary charge.
They are, however, relevant materials which were
legitimately available for consideration by the Enquiry
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 56 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
Officer. The material, taken as a whole, does not establish
that the finding of exoneration is perverse.
Point No.(x): In the ‘ negative’ . No ground is made
out for interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution, except to the limited extent of holding that a
Ministerial note cannot, by itself, confer a substantive right
to the Archaka office.
CONCLUSION:
67. The controversy which has continued for more
than a decade must, therefore, be brought to an end on
the basis of the legal position emerging from the record.
68. The record demonstrates that Varadaraja
Bhattar was not an outsider seeking appointment to the
main Sannidhi solely because of his relationship with
Narasaraja Bhattar. The official order dated 07.05.1981
records his recognition as a joint Archaka of the main
Sannidhi. That factual position materially distinguishes his
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 57 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
claim from the claim of Anand Alwar, whose appointment
is shown to be to the Ramanujacharya Sannidhi.
69. The interim orders passed by this Court in
W.P.No.35902/2013 cannot be construed as a final
declaration of Varadaraja Bhattar’s hereditary right.
Equally, those orders cannot be used to retrospectively
erase the earlier official recognition of his status as joint
Archaka.
70. As regards Narasaraja Bhattar, the Court is
conscious that allegations concerning Temple jewellery are
serious. The material, however, must be assessed with
precision. The Former District Judge’s report records
certain irregularities and adverse observations against
Narasaraja Bhattar, but it does not establish the alleged
theft of 800 grams of gold. The criminal investigation also
did not result in prosecution establishing such theft. The
subsequent allegation concerning 42 ornaments likewise
culminated in a ‘C’ report.
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 58 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
71. The domestic enquiry considered the available
material and resulted in exoneration. The petitioner in
W.P.No.8228/2025 has not established any procedural
illegality or perversity warranting judicial review. More
importantly, being merely the complainant, he has not
demonstrated an independent legal right to challenge the
disciplinary outcome.
72. The writ jurisdiction of this Court cannot be
converted into an appellate forum at the instance of a
complainant for re-appreciation of evidence in a domestic
enquiry. Once the competent authority has considered the
material and reached a conclusion which is reasonably
possible, interference is not warranted merely because the
complainant seeks a different conclusion.
73. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitions are
liable to be disposed of in the following terms.
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 59 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
ORDER
(i) W.P.No.35902/2013 is disposed of ,
holding that the interim orders passed therein
did not confer any fresh substantive hereditary
right upon the petitioner, but the petitioner’s
claim cannot be rejected contrary to the
contemporaneous official record recognising
him as joint Archaka of the main Sannidhi.
(ii) W.P.No.33153/2013 is dismissed as
having become infructuous, insofar as it
challenges the temporary appointment of
Krishna Swamy as in-charge Archaka.
(iii) W.P.No.8691/2014 is dismissed ,
there being no ground warranting interference
with the consequential communications issued
pursuant to the orders operating in
W.P.No.35902/2013.
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 60 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
(iv) W.P.No.12291/2016 is allowed in
part to the limited extent that the
Administrative Instructions/Notes dated
23.12.2015 and 01.02.2016 shall not be
treated as conferring any substantive right
upon B.V. Anand Alwar to the office of Archaka
of the main Sannidhi. Any claim to such office
shall be determined by the competent authority
strictly in accordance with the governing
Temple records, applicable statutory/regulatory
provisions and the established lawful
arrangement.
(v) W.P.No.8228/2025 is dismissed . The
challenge to the order dated 13.03.2025
exonerating Narasaraja Bhattar is rejected.
(vi) The competent authority shall, while
making any future arrangement relating to the
Archaka of the main Sannidhi, consider the
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 61 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58505
WP No. 35902 of 2013
C/W WP No. 33153 of 2013
WP No. 8691 of 2014
AND 2 OTHERS
CNR: KAHC010329452013
existing official records and the governing legal
framework and shall not treat any Ministerial
note or interim order of this Court as a
substitute for determination of substantive
entitlement.
(vii) All pending interlocutory applications,
if any, stand disposed of.
(viii) No order as to costs.
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
CA
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39