The Karnataka High Court has quashed the state government’s order placing Bengaluru’s Gali Anjaneya Swamy Temple under the Muzrai Department, cancelling the related appointment of an administrator and directing that control be handed back to the temple trust within one week of the order being published on the court website.
Justice C.M. Poonacha passed the order while hearing a petition filed by B.P. Nagaraju, convenor of the Gali Anjaneya Swamy Temple Trust, and other trustees. The petition challenged the government order dated July 8, 2025, under which the temple on Mysuru Road had been brought under the Muzrai Department’s control.
The court partly allowed the petition and set aside the order taking over the temple’s administration. Since the appointment of the administrator was based on the same government order, that process also stands cancelled. The administrator has been directed to hand over the temple’s management to the concerned parties within one week after the court order is published on its website.
The judgment does not prevent the authorities from investigating the allegations that had led to the government’s intervention. The court said the relevant departments and authorities could investigate the allegations raised in the case and take action in accordance with law. It also kept open the objections and claims raised by both the petitioners and the respondents.
The government’s July 8, 2025 order had cited internal disagreements among office-bearers of the temple’s management committee. It had also stated that the temple received income running into lakhs of rupees but did not record annual savings because the funds were being spent each year.
According to the reasons recorded in that order, the government had alleged misuse of temple funds and said that records relating to income and expenditure had not been maintained for the previous 25 years. The order further stated that records appeared to have been created after the Muzrai Department’s Assistant Commissioner issued a notice.
These allegations remain subject to investigation and possible action by the competent authorities. The High Court’s decision was based on legal deficiencies in the order under which the temple was taken over, rather than a final finding on the financial allegations.
Senior advocate D.R. Ravishankar appeared for the petitioners. The immediate administrative consequence of the ruling is that the temple’s management must return from the government-appointed administrator to the concerned trust representatives within the period specified by the court.
