<p>The Supreme Court has ordered status quo on appointment of an administrator of Sri Mahatobora Veerabhadreshwara Temple at Hiriyadka, Bommarabettu Village, Udupi.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices N V Ramana, R Subhash Reddy and Surya Kant asked the Karnataka government to file a response explaining what action has been taken in a dispute related to administration of the temple.</p>.<p>The High Court had on February 2, 2020, remanded the matter to ‘Rajya Dharmika Parishat’ for resolution of the dispute.</p>.<p>The Parishat had earlier appointed Sunil Hegde as a fit person for administration of the temple.</p>.<p>However, on a plea by the Alva Hegde family, the HC set aside the Parishat’s order and remanded the matter back to the body under Section 63A of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Charities and Endowments Act, 1997.</p>.<p>Hegde, led by senior advocate Devadatt Kamat and advocate Nishanth Patil, contended before the top court that the petitioner and his family have been conducting the religious affairs of the temple for almost 50 years.</p>.<p>“The temple has gained immense popularity and has become very powerful only due to the constant religious and spiritual effort of the petitioner and his father. It is therefore in the interests of justice that the petitioner be allowed to continue as the ‘fit person’ till the disposal of the present petition,” they pleaded.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court has ordered status quo on appointment of an administrator of Sri Mahatobora Veerabhadreshwara Temple at Hiriyadka, Bommarabettu Village, Udupi.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices N V Ramana, R Subhash Reddy and Surya Kant asked the Karnataka government to file a response explaining what action has been taken in a dispute related to administration of the temple.</p>.<p>The High Court had on February 2, 2020, remanded the matter to ‘Rajya Dharmika Parishat’ for resolution of the dispute.</p>.<p>The Parishat had earlier appointed Sunil Hegde as a fit person for administration of the temple.</p>.<p>However, on a plea by the Alva Hegde family, the HC set aside the Parishat’s order and remanded the matter back to the body under Section 63A of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Charities and Endowments Act, 1997.</p>.<p>Hegde, led by senior advocate Devadatt Kamat and advocate Nishanth Patil, contended before the top court that the petitioner and his family have been conducting the religious affairs of the temple for almost 50 years.</p>.<p>“The temple has gained immense popularity and has become very powerful only due to the constant religious and spiritual effort of the petitioner and his father. It is therefore in the interests of justice that the petitioner be allowed to continue as the ‘fit person’ till the disposal of the present petition,” they pleaded.</p>
