Karnataka HC Stays Single Judge Order on Temple Management, Holds 1935 Scheme Continues Pending Appeal

A Dharwad Division Bench found, prima facie, that a 1935 court-framed scheme under Section 92 CPC survives the HRICE Act until formally modified by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 25(B)(4).

The Dharwad Bench of the High Court of Karnataka, in a Division Bench order dated 19 August 2026, stayed a Single Judge's order that had set aside a notification calling for fresh nominations to the Committee of Management of the Shree Malatesh (Mailarlinga) Temple, Devaragudda. Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav, leading the Division Bench along with Justice Hema Kulkarni, held prima facie that a Scheme settled in 1935 under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 continues to govern the temple's administration until the Deputy Commissioner passes a formal order modifying or cancelling it under Section 25(B)(4) of the Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997. The order resolves, at the interim stage, a three-cornered conflict between a century-old civil court scheme, a State religious endowments statute, and the temple's registration under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950.

The Temple, the 1935 Scheme, and the Contested Notification

The Shree Malatesh (Mailarlinga) Temple at Devaragudda has been governed by a Scheme settled on 25 February 1935 in O.S. No. 5/1906, framed under Section 92 of the CPC. Under that Scheme, the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad has historically appointed and supervised the Committee of Management. A Committee elected in 2003 for a five-year tenure continued in charge well beyond its term, with the court-appointed administrator remaining in position.

On 27 June 2025, the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad issued a notification inviting applications for fresh nominations to constitute a new Committee of Management for a term of five years. A devotee of the temple challenged that notification by filing W.P. No. 104279/2025 before the Single Judge, contending that once the temple was notified under the HRICE Act, the District and Sessions Judge had no further power or authority to convene such a process.

The learned Single Judge agreed. The Single Judge found that the temple had been notified under Section 23 of the HRICE Act and that, accordingly, its Committee of Management was required to be constituted under Section 25 of the HRICE Act. On that sole ground, the notification dated 27 June 2025 was set aside by the order dated 9 July 2026.

Following that order, the Deputy Commissioner and Chairman, District Religious Council, Haveri passed an order dated 14 July 2026 appointing an Administrative Officer under Section 29 of the HRICE Act. The Temple Committee filed WA No. 100478/2026 before the Division Bench, seeking stay of both orders.

The Legal Conflict: Section 92 Scheme Versus HRICE Act Notification

Senior Counsel Sri Shailesh Madiyal, appearing for the Temple Committee, advanced a multi-layered argument. He submitted that even if the temple is registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and even if it has been notified under Section 23 of the HRICE Act, none of these events automatically displaces the 1935 Scheme. The operative provision, he argued, is Section 25(B)(4) of the HRICE Act, which empowers the Deputy Commissioner to modify or cancel a Scheme in force “settled by the Court” only after consulting the Trustees. Since no such order had been passed, the existing Scheme and the authority of the District and Sessions Judge to administer it remained intact.

He further pointed to Section 78 of the HRICE Act, which contains the repeal clause. That clause, he argued, makes no reference to the repeal of Schemes framed under Section 92 of the CPC or to the inapplicability of Section 92. This stands in contrast to Section 118 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, which specifically provides for the repeal of Section 92 schemes. The silence in the Karnataka statute, Senior Counsel argued, was legally significant.

Sri G.M. Gangadhar, Additional Advocate General for the State, countered that once a temple is a notified institution under Section 23 of the HRICE Act, governance by a Committee of Management under Section 25 of that Act follows as a matter of course, and any pre-existing Scheme would yield to the statutory regime.

Senior Counsel Sri S.S. Yadrami, appearing for the writ petitioner, contended that the Government retains power under Section 25 of the HRICE Act to alter or repeal any Scheme in operation, and relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in T. Lakshmikumara Thatacharyar v. Commissioner, HRCE and Others, (1998) 6 SCC 643.

The Division Bench's Reasoning at the Interim Stage

The Division Bench, while confining itself expressly to the interlocutory stage, identified several prima facie points in favour of the Temple Committee.

The Bench noted as undisputed that the temple has been governed by the 1935 Scheme continuously, with the District and Sessions Judge appointing Committees under it, right up to 2025. The Committee constituted pursuant to the Scheme in 2003 had managed the temple's affairs until the Government appointed an Administrator under Section 29 of the HRICE Act.

On the Bombay Public Trusts Act registration, the Bench noted that Section 52 of that Act does clarify the inapplicability of Sections 92 and 93 of the CPC to trusts registered under it, but held that such inapplicability is only prospective. It does not reach back to repeal a Scheme already framed and operative. The Bench found support for this position in Minnoo Rustumji Shroff v. Charity Commissioner, (2005) 2 MHLJ 1135.

On the Third Proviso to Section 25 of the HRICE Act, the Bench observed that it provides only for Committees constituted under the repealed Act ceasing to hold office from the date of commencement of the HRICE Act. Section 78's repeal clause does not refer to Schemes settled under Section 92 of the CPC. Prima facie, unless such a Scheme is altered or modified under Section 25(B)(4), the Committee under the existing Scheme would continue.

On the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 14 July 2026, the Bench was unequivocal: that order was passed under Section 29 of the HRICE Act and could not be construed as an order under Section 25(B)(4) of the same Act. The petitioner's attempt to read it as a Section 25(B)(4) order was rejected.

The Bench was careful to add that all these legal contentions require detailed consideration after completion of pleadings, and that the observations made were expressly for the limited purpose of disposing of the interlocutory applications.

Outcome

The Division Bench allowed I.A. No. 1/2026 and I.A. No. 2/2026 and directed as follows:

The order dated 9 July 2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 104279/2025 is stayed. The consequential action taken by the State pursuant to that order, including the order dated 14 July 2026 passed by the Deputy Commissioner and Chairman, District Religious Council, Haveri appointing an Administrative Officer, is also stayed.

The notification dated 27 June 2025 issued by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad — inviting applications to constitute a fresh Committee — is permitted to be acted upon. Any action taken pursuant to it, however, will be subject to the final orders in the writ appeal.

The Committee that had been in charge of the temple under the 1935 Scheme is permitted to continue administering the temple under the supervision of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, until the appeal is disposed of. The Bench noted that the Committee elected in 2003 had already served well beyond its five-year tenure, and that permitting the notification process to proceed — while keeping the existing Committee in place during the interregnum — would ensure orderly management of the temple's affairs pending the final hearing.