Karnataka HC Keeps Hereditary Archaka Appointment Order Stayed Until Commissioner Considers Challengers’ Interim Plea

The petitioners challenged an order dated 26 March 2026 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner and a consequential Tahsildar memorandum dated 6 April 2026, concerning the appointment of respondent No. 5 as a hereditary archaka

The order followed earlier proceedings in which the High Court had set aside an earlier order, and the appellate court had affirmed that decision

The petitioners stated that they could pursue a revision before the Commissioner but had filed the writ petition because the Commissioner was not sitting

The High Court initially stayed the challenged order and memorandum; the private respondents later sought to vacate that stay

Section 63 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 provides the revision remedy that the Court identified as available to the petitioners

The Court proceeded on the basis that the Revisional Authority should first adjudicate the challenge on its merits; it cited no separate precedent or detailed doctrinal test.

It also directed that a revision filed by 12 November 2026 be entertained without an objection based on delay or limitation

Because the petitioners admitted that a statutory revision was available, the Court considered it appropriate to allow that remedy to be pursued and leave the merits of the challenged order to the Revisional Authority

To preserve the position pending consideration of interim relief in revision, it continued the existing stay until the Revisional Authority considered the petitioners’ ad-interim application

The Court directed that the revision be decided independently of the writ proceedings and left the parties’ rights and contentions open

The petitioners were permitted to file a revision by 12 November 2026, which the Revisional Authority must entertain without raising delay or limitation.

The existing stay of the impugned order and memorandum will continue until the Revisional Authority considers the petitioners’ request for ad-interim relief; the Authority was asked to address the interim application and main proceedings expeditiously