Can Eco-Development Committee Levy Parking Fees On Temple Devotees In Eco-Sensitive Zone? Karnataka High Court Asks

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (July 22) questioned the authority of an Eco-Development Committee (EDC) to collect parking fees from devotees visiting the Sri Anjaneyaswamy Temple at Mutatti in Mandya district, prima facie observing that the temple, though situated in an eco-sensitive zone, cannot itself be treated as an eco-tourism project.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha was hearing a public interest litigation filed by Nagaraju D. challenging a January 17, 2019 communication issued by the Assistant Conservator of Forests, Kaveri Wildlife Sub-Division, Kanakapura, directing the Range Forest Officer (Wildlife) to collect parking fees from devotees.

Recording the submissions of the State, the bench noted that the parking fees were being collected and managed by employees of the Eco-Development Committee and that the statement of objections filed by the respondents explained the manner in which the funds were being utilized.

“...learned Additional Government Advocate is saying that parking fees are collected and ... it is manned by employees of Eco Development Committee. She also draws attention to para 8 [of the statement of objections], which sets out the manner in which funds collected are utilised. The said statement indicates the expenditures incurred for parking assistance...,” the court observed.

The bench directed the respondents to place on record photographs of the parking area and explain the manner in which the parking facilities are being managed. It also asked the petitioner to file an affidavit showing who manages the parking lots and whether the parking spaces fall within the temple premises.

During the hearing, the bench orally questioned whether the collection of parking fees could be justified merely because the temple is located in an eco-sensitive zone.

“What is an eco-tourism spot? You have a policy of eco-tourism. The temple is not an eco-tourism project. If you go there and run a cafeteria, that would be eco-tourism and you can charge. But the temple is just in an eco-sensitive zone,” the court remarked.

Appearing for the petitioner, counsel argued that even assuming that the temple falls within an eco-sensitive zone, the Eco-Development Committee has no authority to collect fees from devotees visiting the shrine. It was contended that the parking facilities are maintained by the local administration and the Tahsildar, and not by the Forest Department.

The petitioner further submitted that although thousands of acres have been notified as eco-sensitive areas and Eco-Development Committees may be constituted by the government, such committees cannot levy parking charges on temple visitors.

The bench then asked, “Where are the vehicles parked?”

Responding to the query, the petitioner submitted that the vehicles are parked within the temple premises.

The court orally observed:

“We are only entertaining this [PIL] on the statement that the parking lots are not maintained by them [the Eco-Development Committee].”

When the petitioner argued that the area in question is not part of a sanctuary but merely falls within an eco-sensitive zone, the State countered that an official memorandum of the Forest Department recognizes 107 villages as forming part of the eco-sensitive zone around the Kaveri Wildlife Sanctuary and that the village where the temple is situated is one of them.

Defending the levy, the Additional Government Advocate submitted, “Entry fee is for the temple, parking fee is for us,” while referring to the manner in which the funds are utilized.

The bench, however, clarified that the question before it was not the utilization of the funds but the source of the authority to collect them.

“We are asking whether you are providing parking services, not how you utilise the funds. Parking fee is not a tax...,” the court orally observed.

The matter has been posted for further hearing in August.

Case Title:  Nagaraju D. v. State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: Writ Petition No. 38570 of 2025