Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1095 (AP)

K. China Audi Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2022-10-20

B.KRISHNA MOHAN

body2022
ORDER : 1. Heard the counsel for the petitioner, the government pleader for endowments, the standing counsel for the respondent No.4 and the counsel appearing for the unofficial respondent Nos.5 to 13. 2. This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent No.1 in issuing the G.O.Rt.No.8, dated 06.01.2022 constituting the non hereditary trust board for the respondent No.4-temple. 3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner hails from the family of founder trustees of the respondent No.4-temple. He filed an application under Section 87(1)(h) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act (Act 30 of 1987) in O.A.No.70 of 2008 before the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur seeking declaration that the petitioner belongs to the founder family of the subject temple and the same was allowed vide orders dated 30.08.2008. 4. Challenging the same one Mr.Palaparthi Narayana Rao filed A.S.No.944 of 2008 before the Hon’ble High Court and stay of operation of the orders in O.A.No.70 of 2008 dated 30.08.2008 was granted in A.S.M.P.No.2798 of 2008 in A.S.No.944 of 2008 which was subsequently renumbered as CMA No.161 of 2011 and the same was withdrawn by the said applicant on 02.01.2020 and as such the order of the learned Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur dated 30.08.2008 in O.A.No.70 of 2008 became final. Subsequently the petitioner filed W.P.No.16189 of 2019 before the Hon’ble High Court questioning the notification issued by the respondent No.1 in G.O.Rt.No.986 dated 30.09.2019 for constitution of the Trust Board. But the said writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents therein to consider the application of the petitioner vide order dated 22.10.2019. Without considering the application of the petitioner, the trust board was constituted under G.O.Rt.No.1082, dated 30.10.2019. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.21337 of 2019 and the same has become infructuous as the period of the trust board was over by 30.10.2021. In the meanwhile, to create some unnecessary further litigation, one Mr.S.Lakshmi Narasa Reddy filed W.P.No.25852 of 2021 against the orders passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur in O.A.No.70 of 2008 dated 30.08.2008 and the same is pending without there being any interim orders. While so, the respondent No.1 without following the due procedure has issued the above said impugned GO Rt.No.8, dated 06.01.2022. Hence, the same is impugned in this writ petition. 5. While so, the respondent No.1 without following the due procedure has issued the above said impugned GO Rt.No.8, dated 06.01.2022. Hence, the same is impugned in this writ petition. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the official respondents have not followed the rules 3, 4, 5, 6(a), 7 and 8 of the Appointment of Trustee Rules, 1987 before issuing the impugned proceedings by the respondent No.1 dated 06.01.2022. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that since the petitioner is a founder family member he shall be appointed as chairman of the board of trustees for the respondent No.4 Temple as per Section 20 of the Act 30 of 1987. For which the petitioner’s application as per Form II of Rule 5 shall be received by the respondents from the petitioner herein. The constitution of non-hereditary trust board and consequential election of the chairman amongst them are contrary to law and as such they are liable to be set aside. The impugned trust board was constituted as per the recommendation of the public representative without verifying the qualifications and disqualifications of the unofficial respondents as required under Sections 18 and 19 of the Act 30 of 1987. But oath of office was administered for the unofficial respondents to act as trust board members on 08.01.2022 to continue in the said position for a period of two years. 6. On the other hand, the respondents 1, 2 and 4 filed counters in the similar terms. The learned Government Pleader for Endowments submits that a notification in Rc.No.A5/3799/2021 dated 23.11.2021 was issued by the Deputy Commissioner Endowments Department Guntur Zone calling for applications from the interested persons to send their applications for constitution of the Trust Board. The power to issue notification calling for applications, verification of antecedents, and submission of report to the competent authority for constitution of the trust board has been delegated to the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur Zone by the respondent No.1 in G.O.Ms.No.522, Revenue (Endowments-I) Dept., dated 27.08.2021. As per the report of the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments, Guntur addressed to the respondent No.2 dated 16.12.2021, the above said notification was affixed in the office of the Gram Panchayat, in the office of Tahsildar, C.S.Puram Mandal, Prakasam District, in the office of the MPDO, Mandal Praja Parishad C.S.Puram Mandal and in the notice board of the respondent No.4-temple. As per the report of the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments, Guntur addressed to the respondent No.2 dated 16.12.2021, the above said notification was affixed in the office of the Gram Panchayat, in the office of Tahsildar, C.S.Puram Mandal, Prakasam District, in the office of the MPDO, Mandal Praja Parishad C.S.Puram Mandal and in the notice board of the respondent No.4-temple. In pursuance of the same, the applications were received and the antecedents were verified by the Inspector, Endowments Department, Kandukur, Prakasam District and the same was forwarded to the respondent No.3 who in turn submitted a report to the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur and the same was forwarded to the respondent No.2. Thereafter the respondent No.2 vide letter dated 20.12.2021 submitted a report to the respondent No.1 mentioning that at present there is no founder family member to the subject temple and on verification of the said report of the respondent No.2, a non-hereditary trust board was constituted duly with the respondents 5 to 13 by the respondent No.1 vide G.O.Rt.No.8 Revenue (Endowments-II) Department, dated 06.01.2022 and the same has come into force on 08.01.2022 upon taking the oath of office and secrecy by the unofficial respondents who in turn elected their Chairman of the trust board also. 7. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 adopting the argument of the learned government pleader for endowments also submits that there is no recorded evidence that the members of “Kommineni family” constructed the respondent No.4 temple over the Jeevasamadhi of Sri Narayana Swamy and acted as hereditary trustees/founder trustees. In fact the brother of the petitioner Mr.Kommineni Adi Narayana got registered the respondent No.4 temple under Section 38 of the Act 17 of 1966 vide proceedings in C.No.A4/5949/1979 dated 03.06.1980 of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Ongole which clearly mentioned that there is no founder at all to the said temple and the said temple was developed with the donations given by the devotees and that there are no previous trustees and the villagers developed the temple and the present trustee is Kommineni Adi Narayana. He also further contended that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur in O.A.No.70 of 2008 dated 30.08.2008 will not come into force unless and until it is approved by the respondent No.2 under Section 87(3) of the Act 30 of 1987 prior to the amendments made to the said section through the Amended Act 33 of 2007. As such the confirmation of the said order is necessary by the respondent No.2 by that date and thereafter the said power to recognize any member belonging to the founder family was amended while conferring the jurisdiction upon the learned Endowments Tribunal by way of amended act 33 of 2007 with effect from 03.01.2008 while amending the Section 87(3) of the Act 30 of 1987 by deleting the said requirement of confirmation by the Commissioner as the jurisdiction was conferred upon the learned Endowments Tribunal. Since the said tribunal was not constituted physically till May, 2010, sub Section (5) was inserted in Section 87 of the Act giving power to the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments to continue the enquiries for deciding the disputes until the constitution of the learned Endowments Tribunal. In view of the same, the above said order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur in favour of the petitioner dated 30.08.2008 has to be confirmed by the Commissioner of the Endowments Department/respondent No.2 and without the said confirmation the said order is non est under law and as such the respondents have not given effect to the said order. In the absence of any valid order recognizing the petitioner as founder family member, there is no obligation for the official respondents to consider his case as a member belonging to the founder family of the respondent No.4-temple for the purpose of appointing him as Chairman of the said Board. 8. The learned Government Pleader also produced the record relating to the impugned proceedings of the respondent No.1 dated 06.01.2022. 9. 8. The learned Government Pleader also produced the record relating to the impugned proceedings of the respondent No.1 dated 06.01.2022. 9. In view of the above said rival contentions and averments, it is to be seen that the respondent No.1 issued the impugned proceedings in G.O.Rt.No.8, dated 06.01.2022 appointing the nine members as mentioned in the said proceedings/the respondents 5 to 13 as Board of Trustees while appointing the senior most archaka as ex officio member by exercising the power under Section 15(1) of the Act 30 of 1987 as Amended by Act No.8/2014, 31/2019 fixing the term of board as two years with effect from the date of taking the oath of office and secrecy. 10. The respondent No.2 addressed a letter to the respondent No.1, dated 20.12.2021 informing that nine applications have been received seeking trusteeship of the subject temple pursuant to the above said notification, the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments Department, Guntur reported that the antecedents of the said applicants have been verified and submitted a report and the status of the applicants was discussed and observed that there is no founder family member of the subject temple and one Mr.Kommineni China Adinarayana (petitioner herein) filed W.P.No.21337 of 2019 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the same is pending and that there are no interim orders in it and requested the respondent No.1 to consider the applications of the nine persons with antecedent reports submitted to them. The Deputy Commissioner’s letter to the respondent No.2 dated 16.12.2021 discloses that the above said notification was duly affixed in the office of the Tahsildar, in the office of the MDO, in the office of the Gram Panchayat and in the notice board of the subject temple on 25.11.2021. It further contains that the subject temple was published under Section 6(a)(ii) of the Act 30 of 1987 and it is under the administrative control of the respondent No.2 and at present the temple is under the management of Sri N.Narayana Reddy, Executive Officer-II and there is no founder trustee and the petitioner filed the W.P.No.21337 of 2019 which has become infructuous as the trust board constituted at that time was expired by 30.10.2021. 11. 11. A perusal of the record also discloses that the notification was published duly and procedure has been followed as per the rules before issuing the impugned proceedings dated 06.01.2022 in respect of appointing the respondents 5 to 13 as non hereditary trustees of the trust board of the respondent no.4-temple. However, the claim of the petitioner has to be examined in the light of the above said proceedings and orders of the official respondents. No doubt the petitioner filed OA No.70 of 2008 before the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur, against the respondent No.4-temple and the respondent No.3 herein under Section 87(1)(h) of the Act 30 of 1987 seeking declaration as member belonging to the founder family of the subject temple. The respondents therein contested the matter and ultimately it was declared that Sri Kommineni China Adinarayana (the petitioner) is a member of the founder family of Sri Narayana Swamy temple, Kovilampadu Mittapalem Village, C.S. Puram Mandal, Prakasam District and the said OA was allowed vide order dated 30.08.2008. 12. Against the order in O.A.No.70 of 2008 of the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments Department, Guntur dated 30.08.2008, one Mr.Palaparti Narayana Rao filed A.S.No.940 of 2008 before the erstwhile High Court and the same was renumbered as CMA No.161 of 2011 which was withdrawn on 02.01.2020. Though the petitioner filed W.P.No.16189 of 2019, before this court questioning the notification issued by the respondent No.1 in G.O.Rt.No.986 dated 30.09.2019, the said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to consider the application of the petitioner vide order dated 22.10.2019. But without considering the petitioner’s case, a trust board was constituted in G.O.Rt.No.1082 dated 30.10.2019. The same was under challenge again by the petitioner in W.P.No.21337 of 2019 and the same has become infructuous as stated above and accordingly it was dismissed as infructuous on 02.08.2022. Except the W.P.No.25852 of 2021 against the orders in O.A.No.70 of 2008 dated 30.08.2008 of the Deputy Commissioner Endowments, no other proceedings or cases pending against the said order of the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments challenging the same. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner Endowments in O.A.No.70 of 2008 dated 30.08.2008, is an order passed by the said authority while exercising the quasi judicial power as there was no tribunal constituted at that point of time. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner Endowments in O.A.No.70 of 2008 dated 30.08.2008, is an order passed by the said authority while exercising the quasi judicial power as there was no tribunal constituted at that point of time. The respondent No.2 cannot exercise either appellate or revisional power over the said quasi judicial decision of the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments in the above said order dated 30.08.2008. Hence confirmation by the respondent No.2 as contended by the counsels for the respondents is not warranted under law. Unless and until it is set aside in appeal, till such time the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments dated 30.08.2008 is binding on the respondents to carry out the same. Since the stare decisis principle applies for the respondents to implement the orders in O.A.No.70 of 2008 dated 30.08.2008 of the Deputy Commissioner Endowments Department, Guntur, they cannot circumvent the same by saying that it is not confirmed by the respondent No.2 herein and any such non confirmation would be violative of the Rules and provisions of the Act 30 of 1987 in the facts and circumstances of this case. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the case of the petitioner shall be considered as a founder family member/founder trustee of the respondent No.4-temple and consequential appointment as Chairman of the Trust Board constituted under G.O.Rt.No.8 dated 06.01.2022 of the respondent No.1. Hence, the respondents are directed to declare the petitioner as a founder family member/founder trustee of the respondent No.4-temple and place him as “Chairman” of the Trust Board as contemplated under the provisions of the Act 30 of 1987 by continuing the other unofficial respondents as members of the Trust Board under G.O.Rt.No.8, dated 06.01.2022 of the respondent No.1. The said declaration of the status of the petitioner is subject to outcome of the W.P.No.25852 of 2021. Accordingly, the necessary orders have to be issued by the respondents as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.