Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1003 (AP)

D. Pulla Rao v. Govt. of A. P

2003-08-07

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2003
ORDER : L. Narasimha Reddy, J. The petitioner is a former Treasurer of a Committee, which managed the affairs of Sri Kalimatha Ammavari Temple Vijayawada, the 4th respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the Temple' for short), the temple is said to have been closed till 1965. Thereafter it was opened and gained popularity year after year. For the purpose of management of the temple, the Government, in exercise of its powers under Section 154 of the Andhra pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), issued G.O. Ms. No.574 dated 23-6-1993, exempting the Temple from the purview of Sections 15 and 29 of the Act/for a period of three years. During this period, the Temple was under the administration of a Committee. After expiry of that period, the exemption was extended for a further period of three years, through G.O.Ms.No.614 dated 26-7-1996. 2. The petitioner filed W.P.No.15436 of 1996 challenging G.O.Ms.No.614 dated 26-7-1996. The writ petition was dismissed through orders dated 12-12-1996. He filed W.A.No.47/1997. A division bench of this Court granted stay in his favour on 3-11-1997. One of the members of the Temple committee filed SLP.No.3599/1997. The Supreme Court stayed the order Granted by the division bench or this Court. Ultimately, it disposed of the SLP, directing an early hearing of the writ appeal. While doing so, it directed that the stay granted by it shall be in force pending disposal of the writ appeal. Since the term of three years came to an end, by the time the writ appeal came up for hearing, it was dismissed as infructuous on 23-1-2002. 3. On expiry of the period stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.614, the Government appointed an Executive Officer for the administration of the Temple. Subsequently, on consideration of the representations of the members of the previous Committee, and the report of the Commissioner of Endowments, the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.1002 dated 1-6-2002, granting exemption from the provisions of Sections 15 and 29 of the Act, for a period of three years i.e., from 27-7-1999 to 26-7-2003. The petitioner challenges the same in this writ petition. 4. The petitioner challenges the same in this writ petition. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that administration of the Temples which are governed by the provisions of the Act vest in the Trust Boards constituted under Section 15 of the Act and the day to day managements vest in the Executive Officers appointed under Section 29 of the Act. According to him, so long as the Act provides for management of the temple in a particular manner, there does not exist any basis for exempting any temple from the purview of the important Sections or the Act. Allegations of certain financial irregularities against the members of the Committee are also made. 5. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a counter affidavit. They state that the power under Section 154 of the Act was exercised in respect of the temple for its better administration. The sequence of events that has taken place is furnished. Replying to the allegations as to financial irregularities against the members of the Committee, it is stated that the allegations were enquired into and ultimately it was found that the temple was administered by the Committee in accordance with the relevant provisions and without any irregularities. 6. In the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent, it is stated that the petitioner, who worked as Treasurer of the Sangham, did not account for certain amounts collected by him and on that basis he was removed from the post of the Treasurer. It is stated that except the petitioner, neither any devotee nor any member of the Sangham have complained about the administration of the temple by the Committee. 7. Sri V.S.R.Anjanevulu, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the power under Section 154 to the Act cannot be exercised to exempt the religious institutions from the provisions of Sections 15 and 29 of the Act. It is his case that Temples of public nature cannot be left to be administered by private individuals. He placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court in Executive Officer, Group Temples v. D. Rama Rao, 1999 (3) ALT 466 (D.B.) and Hitakarini Samaj v. State of A.P., 1999 (4) ALT 668 (D.B.). 8. It is his case that Temples of public nature cannot be left to be administered by private individuals. He placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court in Executive Officer, Group Temples v. D. Rama Rao, 1999 (3) ALT 466 (D.B.) and Hitakarini Samaj v. State of A.P., 1999 (4) ALT 668 (D.B.). 8. The learned Government Pleader for Endowments and Sri K. Raghuveer Reddy, learned Counsel for the 4th respondent, on the other hand, submit that the Government is vested with the power to grant exemption in appropriate cases and unless the exercise of power was shown to have been resorted to for illegal purposes or in an irregular manner, no interference is called for. They point out to the conduct of the petitioner in stalling the administration of the temple just to satisfy his ego. 9. Two questions fall for consideration in this case, viz., (1) whether the Government is vested with the power to grant exemption from the purview of Sections 15 and 29 of the Act and (2) whether the power was exercised reasonably. Section 154 of the Act reads as under: "Exemption The Government may by notification, exempt from the operation of any of the provisions of this Act or any of the rules made thereunder,- (a) any charitable institution or endowment the administration of which was or is for the time being vested - (i) in The Government either directly or through a Committee or treasurer of Endowments, appointed for the purpose. (ii) in the official Trustee or in the Administrator General: (b) any charitable institution or endowment founded for educational purpose or for providing medical relief; or (c) any institution or endowment which is being well managed by the founder : or (d) any institution or endowment; and may likewise vary or cancel such exemption." A reading of this provision discloses that the power vests with the Government to grant exemption from the purview of any of the provisions of the Act. The Section does not require any particular exercise to be undertaken before such exemption is granted. The exemption is not limited to any set of provisions of the Act. It is not as if the provision enables the Government to grant exemption only as regards limited number of provisions and the exemption granted under the impugned order relates to some other provision. The exemption is not limited to any set of provisions of the Act. It is not as if the provision enables the Government to grant exemption only as regards limited number of provisions and the exemption granted under the impugned order relates to some other provision. The petitioner is not able to point out any defect so far as the source of power is concerned. 10. It may be true that Section 15, which provides for constitution of Trust Board and Section 29, which provides for appointment of Executive Officer are important for the administration of the Temples and other Religious Institutions. But, in a set of circumstances, if the Government chooses to exempt the administration of the Temple/Institution from the said provisions, no exception can be taken, as long as the exercise of the power was reasonable. 11. Coming to the 2nd question, it needs to be seen as to whether there was any irregularity in exercise of the power. It is well settled principle of law that existence of power by itself is not a justification for the exercise of it. The other way of putting it is that the Government cannot act unreasonably or in a capricious manner in exercise of its power. It is a matter of record that the Government granted exemption in favour of the Temple for the first time in the year 1993. There was no complaint as regards the functioning of the Committee during that term. It has been stated in the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent that the income of the Temple has substantially increased under the management of the Committee. This has not been disputed. Obviously having been satisfied about the performance of the Committee during 1993-1996, The Government granted the exemption thereafter. The petitioner challenged the same by filing writ petition. As observed earlier, Writ Appeal and SLP ensued. Even before adjudication could be undertaken as to the validity or otherwise of the order in G.O.Ms.No.614 dated 26-7-1996, the writ appeal was dismissed as having become infructuous. When the Government Granted exemption for the 3rd time that the present writ petition is filed and an interim order was obtained on 30-9-2002. in deference to the order of this Court, it is stated that an Executive Officer was appointed. 12. When the Government Granted exemption for the 3rd time that the present writ petition is filed and an interim order was obtained on 30-9-2002. in deference to the order of this Court, it is stated that an Executive Officer was appointed. 12. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in Executive Officer, Group of Temple's case (supra) and Hitakarini Samaj's case (supra), this Court held that power under Section 154 cannot be exercised to grant exemption from the purview of Sections 15 and 29 of the Act. A perusal of these judgments discloses that in none of these two judgments, it was held that the power to grant exemption is not available vis-a-vis the provisions of Sections 15 and 29 of the Act. in the first case (supra), the rights of hereditary trustees were dealt with in the other case the subject matter related to cancellation of an exemption granted by the Government. In a way that judgment approved the power of the Government, both as regards grant of exemption from the provisions or Sections 15 and 29 or the Act and withdrawal of exemption. Apart from not being of any help to the petitioner, this judgment helps this Court in repelling the contention of the petitioner. This court cannot inquire into whether there existed the circumstances warranting exercise of discretion by the Government. 13. As is common in any other case of exercise of discretion, in the matter of grant of exemption under Section 154 of the Act also, it is required to be exercised reasonably. To establish that the power of exemption was exercised unreasonably, necessary facts have to be pleaded and established. The only ground pleaded by the petitioner in this regard is that there were certain allegations of mismanagement. In their respective counter affidavits, the respondents have categorically stated that the enquiries revealed that the administration by the Committee was proper and legal. 14. Under these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to hold that the power to exemption under Section 154 of the Act is not available vis-a-vis Sections 15 and 29 of the Act or that there was illegality in exercise of power by the 1st respondent in issuing the impugned order. The administration of the 4th respondent Temple cannot be required to be in a manner that suits the whims and fancies of an individual. The administration of the 4th respondent Temple cannot be required to be in a manner that suits the whims and fancies of an individual. The result of the litigation undertaken by the petitioner was neither in the public interest nor in the interest of the Temple. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.