Temple Pooja Dispute: Karnataka HC Rejects Writ Against Trust Deed, Says Alleged Breach Of Interim Order Can Be Raised In Pending Appeal

The petitioners sought a writ of certiorari under Articles 226 and 227 to quash a trust deed dated 19 September 2023, registered as Reg. No. 236/2023, concerning the Sri Malleshwara Swamy and Sri Ranganatha Swamy Seva Trust at Ojugunte Village.

Disputes concerning temple management and pooja had been litigated in O.S. No. 216/2004 and R.A. No. 50/2009 and were then pending in R.S.A. No. 1699/2010.

In that appeal, an interim order protected the parties’ respective rights relating to pooja, rituals and temple administration.

The petitioners alleged that registration of the trust deed violated that order; respondents contended that the interim order did not concern management or administration of the temple or trust.

1. Whether a registered deed of trust could be quashed by the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

2. Whether an alleged breach of the interim order in the pending R.S.A. should be pursued through a separate writ petition or by an appropriate application in that appeal.

The Court considered the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 and held that a registered deed of trust could not be quashed in exercise of that jurisdiction; execution of such a deed did not fall within judicial review of administrative action.

It further applied the principle that an alleged violation of an interim order should be raised through an appropriate application in the proceeding in which that order was made.

No statute or precedent was cited.

The Court did not determine whether the deed actually violated the interim order or resolve the parties’ competing interpretations of that order.

It held that, even if a violation had occurred, the petitioners’ remedy was to apply in the pending R.S.A., rather than institute a separate writ petition to quash the registered deed.

Because the deed’s registration was not an administrative action amenable to the judicial review sought, the writ petition was not maintainable.

I.A. No. 1/2024 was also dismissed.