1 week Ago By Express News Service
BENGALURU: Without the permission of the court, the state government should not take any action or decision under Sections 16 and 17 of the Shree Chamundeshwari Kshetra Development Authority Act, 2024, said the Karnataka High Court. Justice Hemant Chandangoudar passed the interim order after hearing a petition filed by Pramoda Devi Wadiyar, wife of late Srikantadatta Narasimha Raja Wadiyar. Pramoda Devi challenged the constitutional validity of the Act enacted by the state government.
Section 16 empowers the chief minister, the ex-officio chairperson of the authority under the new Act, to take decisions without holding a meeting of the authority, but by mere circulation of the subject among the members. Similarly, Section 17 authorises the chairman to pass orders in urgent cases without holding a meeting or circulating subject matter among the members, but take post-facto approval by placing such orders before the authority meeting. The petitioner contended that the Act was promulgated while a legal dispute between the royal family and the state government was still pending before the high court in a writ appeal.
The promulgation of the Act contravenes the Rules of Procedure of the Legislative Assembly and various provisions of the Act infringe upon their fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 13, 25, 26, and 29 of the Constitution, she argued. Appearing for the state, Additional Advocate General Devdas fairly conceded that pending the disposal of this writ petition, neither the movable nor the immovable properties belonging to the temple will be disposed of. He also submitted that the prevailing customs and traditions of the temple shall not be modified or interfered with during the pendency of the petition.
The court made it clear that any decision under the new Act 2024 should only be taken with the prior leave of the court. However, the pendency of this writ petition should not preclude the state government from framing appropriate Rules under the Act, it added. The court directed the Authority to serve notices of any meetings to the petitioner.
In the event that the petitioner chooses not to attend or participate in the proceedings, the Authority is at liberty to take decisions in accordance with the provisions of the Act, it said..
