Karnataka HC Quashes Gali Anjaneya Temple Takeover, Orders Handover Within A Week After Assistant Commissioner, Not Commissioner, Issued Notice

In brief

The question

Whether a notice under Section 43(1) of the Act may be issued by the Assistant Commissioner, rather than the Commissioner?

The court held

The Court held that the Section 43 notice was required to be issued by the Commissioner and quashed the Government Order dated 8 July 2025.

It also directed

As the administrator’s authority to manage the institution derived from that order, the administrator was directed to hand over its affairs to the entity from which they had been taken, as expeditiously as possible and within one week of receiving the order.

The petition was partly allowed, without prejudice to the official respondents’ ability to initiate proceedings permitted by law.

01Facts

The Assistant Commissioner issued a notice dated 10 October 2024 under Sections 42 and 43 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997, asking the petitioners to show cause why the temple should not be brought under the Department’s administration on allegations of mismanagement

¶ 2

After the petitioners responded, an enquiry was conducted and the State passed an order dated 8 July 2025 concerning the temple’s administration.

¶ 2

The petitioners challenged that order, contending that the notice required by Section 43(1) had not been issued by the Commissioner.

¶ 2, 4, 7

02Issues

i.Whether a notice under Section 43(1) of the Act may be issued by the Assistant Commissioner, rather than the Commissioner?

¶ 4, 8–10

ii.Whether the Government Order dated 8 July 2025, made following proceedings initiated by that notice, should be quashed?

¶ 9–10, 15–16

iii.Whether the administrator appointed under the quashed order should hand over the institution’s affairs?

¶ 17–18

03Law Applied

Section 42 of the Act empowers the State Government to declare a Hindu religious institution subject to the relevant chapter where the statutory requirements are met.

¶ 8–10

Under Section 43(1), it is the Commissioner who must have reason to believe that the institution is being mismanaged, be satisfied that proceedings are necessary in the interests of its administration, and issue the show-cause notice.

¶ 8–10

Those jurisdictional conditions are essential to commencing proceedings under Sections 42 and 43; an order made at the culmination of proceedings initiated without them is unsustainable.

¶ 8–10

The Court applied the Division Bench decision in Sri Sudakar Gowda & Ors. v. Smt. Manorama S. Shetty & Ors., W.A. No. 578/2026, and distinguished President, Shri Vishnumurthy Temple v. Commissioner & Ors., W.A. No. 919/2025, where the notice had been issued by the Commissioner and a subordinate officer conducted the enquiry under delegated authority.

¶ 5–6, 10–12

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ACT, 1997 Section 42 Section 43

04Reasoning

The notice initiating the proceedings was admittedly issued by the Assistant Commissioner, not the Commissioner.

¶ 7, 9

Section 43(1) assigns the relevant belief, satisfaction, and notice functions to the Commissioner; those requirements are not met merely because a subordinate officer conducts an enquiry or because the matter is later considered by the State.

¶ 8–10

The Vishnumurthy Temple decision did not assist the State because, unlike this case, the notice there had been issued by the Commissioner.

¶ 11–12

The defect therefore affected the jurisdictional basis of the proceedings and rendered the resulting Government Order unsustainable.

¶ 10, 15–16