ORDER : (Subba Reddy Satti, J.) The above writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “… to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings bearing Rc.No.DP1/19027(37)/8/2018-1 dated 08.06.2023 and the consequential (i) order bearing Rc.No.DP1/19027(37)/8/2018-2 dated 08.06.2023; (ii) order bearing Rc.No.DP1/19027(37)/8/2018-3 dated 11.06.2023 issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, violative of principles of natural justice and in violation of Articles 14, 21, 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the subsisting orders of this Hon’ble Court dated 07.09.2006 in WAVM.P.No.1535/2006 in W.A.No.258/2006 and interim orders dt.03.04.2018 in W.P.No.9716/2018 and also contrary to the provisions of Act 30 of 1987 and the Rules made thereunder, and consequently set aside the impugned proceedings dt.08.06.2023 and 11.06.2023 … …” 2. (a) Averments in the affidavit, in brief, are that petitioner, one of the disciples of Sri Devenderdassji Varu was appointed as interim Mahant of the Math by 1st respondent-State on 07.09.1990. The 3rd respondent-Commissioner of Endowments conducted enquiry and having satisfied qua smooth running of the administration of the Math by order dated 06.07.2000 accorded permission to the petitioner to succeed the office of Mathadhipathi under Section 53(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short “the Act”). By a separate proceeding dated 06.07.2000, the Commissioner of Endowments ordered that the Special Grade Deputy Collector appointed by the Government would continue as custodian of the Math for managing the secular affairs of the Math. b) Petitioner assumed charge as Mahant of the Math on 18.07.2000 and the Pattabhishekam was performed on 08.10.2000. The Commissioner of Endowments vide proceedings dated 06.09.2000 and 22.09.2000 accorded permission to the custodian to incur necessary expenditure in consultation with the Mahant. Since, the custodian was continued to deal with the management of the Math, and the petitioner was confined to discharge religious activities, petitioner filed W.P.No.4326 of 2002 to direct the Commissioner of Endowments to remove the custodian and to handover the charge of the Math including administration of properties of the Math. The 1st respondent issued proceedings dated 10.10.2002 to show cause as to why the appointment of petitioner as permanent Mahant should not be cancelled. Petitioner filed W.P.M.P.No.29492 of 2002 in W.P.No.5326 of 2002 seeking suspension of operation of notice dated 10.10.2002. The 1st respondent issued proceedings dated 10.10.2002 to show cause as to why the appointment of petitioner as permanent Mahant should not be cancelled. Petitioner filed W.P.M.P.No.29492 of 2002 in W.P.No.5326 of 2002 seeking suspension of operation of notice dated 10.10.2002. The Court by order dated 25.11.2002 granted liberty to the petitioner to submit an explanation to the show cause notice and further directed the 1st respondent to dispose of the matter within eight weeks. Further, ordered that until such exercise is completed, respondents should not disturb the petitioner. Petitioner submitted explanation dated 28.10.2002 and 07.12.2002. The Government by order dated 10.07.2003 set aside the proceedings of the Commissioner dated 06.07.2000 and directed the Commissioner to fill up the office of Mahant and make interim arrangements in accordance with law. c) Aggrieved by the order dated 10.07.2003, petitioner filed W.P.No.14856 of 2003. Both W.P.Nos.4326 of 2002 and 14856 of 2003 were allowed by a common order dated 27.01.2006. Aggrieved by the same, respondents filed W.A.Nos.258 and 259 of 2006. Initially, an interim order was granted on 13.03.2006 suspending the common order dated 27.01.2006. Petitioner filed WAVMP No.1535 of 2006 in W.A.No.258 of 2006 and the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 07.09.2006 vacated the interim order dated 13.03.2006 with a rider that the person, put in possession of the properties of the Math and will become entitled to manage its affairs, shall not be entitled to dispose of any property of the Math. The petitioner filed a contempt case since the order dated 07.09.2006 was not complied with. The Government handed over the management of the Math to the petitioner on 16.11.2006. d) From the date of handing over charge of the Math on 16.11.2006, the petitioner has been managing the affairs of the Math and also protecting the properties of the Math. The petitioner never violated the order in WAVMP No.1535 of 2006 in W.A.No.258 of 2006. e) Be that as it may, on administrative grounds and in the best interest of the Math and devotees, petitioner being the secular and religious head of the Math, transferred Madhava Doss, Poojari of Jabali Temple, Tirumala and also transferred Arundass, Poojari of Sri Vengopalaswamy Temple, Tirumala and later transferred to Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Sugur, Gulbarga. The transferees bore grudge against the petitioner and started abusing the petitioner making false allegations. The transferees bore grudge against the petitioner and started abusing the petitioner making false allegations. Apart from those two Poojaris, one A.B.Srinivasan, ex-employee of the Math filed W.P.No.9423 of 2014, dismissed for default on 12.05.2023, C.C.No.2082 of 2014 and filed false complaint Case No.89 of 2015/B1 against the petitioner before the Lok Ayuktha. f) One Kola Lakshmipati, Editor of Mayavi Newspaper also bore grudge against the petitioner. One Shyam Dass, who was erstwhile cook of the Math, whose services were terminated filed W.P.No.12584 of 2018 with false allegations. g) The said two Poojaris and A.B.Srinivasan joined hands with Kola Lakshmipathi with a malafide intention to defame and dethrone the petitioner from the office of Mahant of Sri Swamy Hathiramji Math, got published a news item with false, abusive, defamatory allegations. The false news item was published in newspaper in December, 2017 and also broadcasted in electronic media. They also fabricated one Memorandum of Understanding dated 04.12.2007. Similar allegations made by one Madan Mohan @ Madhu and Dwarakanath Reddy, the Government after conducting detailed enquiry held that the said allegations are false and closed the complaint. h) The 4th respondent-Regional Joint Commissioner issued proceedings Rc.No.B3/6602/2017 dated 28.12.2017 to conduct enquiry into the allegations published in Mayavi newspaper against Mahanthvaru. The 1st respondent by proceedings vide Memo No.959404/Endt-II/2017 dated 02.01.2018 directed the Commissioner Endowments to examine the representations submitted by Sri Arundass and another dated 14.12.2017 and the petition received from D.Nagarjuna Sarma dated 20.12.2017 and furnish a detailed report to the Government. Against those two proceedings, petitioner filed W.P.No.9716 of 2018 and the Court granted interim order dated 03.04.2018 suspending the proceedings dated 28.12.2017 and 02.01.2018. Pending the above writ appeals and writ petition and subsistence of interim orders, the 3rd respondent-Commissioner issued proceedings vide Rc.No.DP1/19027(37)/8/2018-1 dated 28.01.2020 framing charges against the petitioner and also issued consequent proceedings vide Rc.No.DP1/19027(37)/8/2018-2 dated 28.01.2020 suspending the petitioner from the office of Mahant and appointing the Executive Officer of Sri Kalahasteeswara Swamy Devasthanam, Srikalahasti as fit person. Later by proceedings dated 10.02.2020 additional charges were framed. i) Aggrieved by the order dated 28.01.2020, whereby the petitioner was suspended from the office of Mahant and appointment of fit person, petitioner filed W.P.No.2391 of 2020. The Court granted interim order dated 10.02.2020. Aggrieved by interim order dated 10.02.2020, respondents therein filed W.A.No.161 of 2020 and the same was dismissed on 28.02.2020. i) Aggrieved by the order dated 28.01.2020, whereby the petitioner was suspended from the office of Mahant and appointment of fit person, petitioner filed W.P.No.2391 of 2020. The Court granted interim order dated 10.02.2020. Aggrieved by interim order dated 10.02.2020, respondents therein filed W.A.No.161 of 2020 and the same was dismissed on 28.02.2020. The 2nd respondent filed SLP(C) No.1287 of 2021 and the same was disposed of on 16.02.2021 requesting the Court to dispose of the writ petition within three months. W.P.No.2391 of 2020 was allowed on 13.04.2023 by setting aside the order impugned therein and the matter was remitted back to Dharmika Parishad to take appropriate action in accordance with law and the respondents are directed to continue the petitioner as Mahanth of the Math. j) The 2nd respondent-Dharmika Parishad, represented by its Member Secretary issued proceedings vide Rc.No.DP1/19027(37)/8/2018-1 dated 08.06.2023 framing charges against the petitioner. By order vide Rc.No.DP1/19027(37)/8/2018-2 dated 08.06.2023 petitioner was suspended from the office of Mahant. By order vide Rc.No.DP1/19027(37)/8/2018-3 dated 08.06.2023, Sri L.Vijaya Saradhi, Special Deputy Collector, OSD Lands, APIIC, Head Office, Mangalagiri was appointed as fit person to look after the day-to-day management on secular affairs of the Math till further orders subject to considering the claims of disciplines of the Math by the Dharmika Parishad under Section 51 (2) of the Act. Later, the 2nd respondent by proceedings vide Rc.No.DP1/19027(37)/8/2018-1 dated 08.06.2023 appointed 5th respondent as fit person to look after the day-to-day management on secular affairs. Impugning the charge memo and suspension order dated 08.06.2023 and order of appointment of fit person dated 11.06.2013, the above writ petition is filed. 3. a) Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of 2nd respondent. The Member Secretary of A.P. Dharmika Parishad and Commissioner deposed the affidavit. It was contended, inter alia, that Sri Swamy Hathiramji Math, Tirupati was published under Section 6 (d) of the Act and the same is under the administrative control of A.P. Dharmika Parishad. The A.P. Dharmika Parishad is the competent authority to take disciplinary action against the Mathadipati. The Dharmika Parishad was constituted under Section 152 of the Act, comprised of 21 members, out of which 4 members are official. The Government constituted Dharmika Parishad for a period of 3 years vide G.O.Ms.No.571 dated 13.08.2022. The A.P. Dharmika Parishad is the competent authority to take disciplinary action against the Mathadipati. The Dharmika Parishad was constituted under Section 152 of the Act, comprised of 21 members, out of which 4 members are official. The Government constituted Dharmika Parishad for a period of 3 years vide G.O.Ms.No.571 dated 13.08.2022. b) In the year 1983, Sri Sarjudass, the then Mahanth of the subject Math was removed by the Government on certain allegations of mismanagement and misappropriation of the subject Math properties. In view of vacancy, 3rd respondent in exercise of powers conferred under Section 8 r/w 47 of the Act 17 of 1966, issued proceedings dated 27.12.1983 appointing the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments as the custodian of the Math to administer and manage the affairs of the Math till Mathadipati succeeds to the office. c) The petitioner was originally appointed as Poojari at Sri Tirumala Branch Math and subsequently, he was allowed to function as ‘Adhikari’ at Tirumala Branch Math. On 07.09.1990, the petitioner was appointed as ‘interim Mahanth’ to the Math. Sri Sarjudass passed away on 20.10.1999 and thereafter, petitioner made a representation to recognize him as Mathadipati under Section 53 of the Act. Considering the same, the Commissioner Endowments, issued proceedings No.12/631/1990-1 dated 06.07.2000 permitting the petitioner to succeed the office of Mathadipati of the Math under Section 53 (1) of the Act. On the same day, proceedings were issued appointing Special Grade Deputy Collector as custodian of the Math for managing the secular affairs. The petitioner assumed charge of the Math on 18.07.2000 and later filed W.P.No.4326 of 2002 to remove the custodian. d) The Government issued a memo dated 10.10.2002 to show cause as to why the appointment of the petitioner should not be cancelled, pointing out breaches. Petitioner filed WPMP No.29492 of 2002 in W.P.No.4326 of 2002. The petitioner submitted an explanation to the Government and the Government in its order dated 10.07.2003 set aside the orders of the Commissioner dated 06.07.2000. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed W.P.No.14856 of 2003. By common order dated 27.01.2006, W.P.Nos.4326 of 2002 and 14856 of 2003 were allowed. e) Aggrieved by the common order, W.A.Nos.258 and 259 of 2006 were filed. Initially, the Division Bench suspended the order of the learned single Judge on 13.03.2006 and later vacated the interim order dated 07.09.2006. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed W.P.No.14856 of 2003. By common order dated 27.01.2006, W.P.Nos.4326 of 2002 and 14856 of 2003 were allowed. e) Aggrieved by the common order, W.A.Nos.258 and 259 of 2006 were filed. Initially, the Division Bench suspended the order of the learned single Judge on 13.03.2006 and later vacated the interim order dated 07.09.2006. The management of secular affairs of Math including its properties were handed over to the petitioner on 16.11.2006. Since then, petitioner has been discharging the duties of Mathadipati while managing the secular as well as religious affairs. f) Several complaints from A.B.Srinivasan, N.Changalrayudu, Syamdas and others were received against the petitioner that he caused huge loss to the Math. The Additional Director General of Police, CID, AP submitted a report to the Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endts), Department through his letter dated 25.07.2018. The enquiry reveals that there are many lapses on the part of petitioner and requested the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (Endts-I) Department to delete secular affairs of the Math from petitioner’s control to safeguard the Math properties and its Holiness. The then Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments, Tirupati issued Memo dated 28.12.2017. The Government vide Memo dated 02.01.2018 directed the Commissioner of Endowments to examine the representation submitted by the petitioner and another dated 14.12.2017 and the petition received from D.Nagarjuna Sarma dated 20.12.2017. Aggrieved by these two memos, petitioner filed W.P.No.7916 of 2018 and the Court granted interim order dated 03.04.2018. g) The official members of Dharmika Parishad, framed charges against the petitioner vide Rc.No.DP1/19027(37)/8/2018-1 dated 28.01.2020 placed the petitioner under suspension pending the enquiry. Petitioner filed W.P.No.2391 of 2020. The Court granted interim order on 10.02.2020 to continue the petitioner as Mahanth of Math and the proceedings of the Commissioner dated 28.01.2020 were suspended. The petitioner did not submit explanation to the charges and eventually, W.P.No.2391 of 2020 was disposed of on 13.04.2023 remanding the matter back to the Dharmika Parishad to take appropriate action in accordance with law, if it is advised to do so. h) Dharmika Parishad examined the matter in detail and noticed grave allegations of illegalities and irregularities against the petitioner, the Mahanth of the Math. Dharmika Parishad in its meeting held on 08.06.2023 unanimously decided to initiate action against the petitioner under Section 51(2) of the Act. As many as 16 charges were framed calling upon the petitioner to submit an explanation. Dharmika Parishad in its meeting held on 08.06.2023 unanimously decided to initiate action against the petitioner under Section 51(2) of the Act. As many as 16 charges were framed calling upon the petitioner to submit an explanation. Petitioner in anticipation of action to be initiated by A.P. Dharmika Parishad, has voluntarily left the locality, and absconded and was not available for service of proceedings, as such the proceedings of Dharmika Parishad are affixed to the doors of premises of petitioner in the presence of mediators. i) A.P. Dharmika Parishad in its meeting held on 08.06.2023 unanimously resolved that the administration and management on secular affairs of the Math requires appointment of fit person. Accordingly, the Dharmika Parishad took a decision to appoint a fit person to the Math on temporary basis as a stopgap arrangement to look after the administration and management of secular affairs of Math till considering the claims of the disciples of the Math. Initially, L.Vijaya Saradhi was appointed as fit person, but the said incumbent could not assume charge due to death of his mother. In view of circumstances, urgent special meeting of A.P. Dharmika Parishad was conducted on 11.06.2023 and took a decision to appoint K.Ramesh Naidu, Special Grade Deputy Collector and Executive Officer of Endowments as fit person vide proceedings dated 11.06.2023. The said incumbent took charge as fit person on 12.06.2023. j) Petitioner without submitting any explanation to the charges filed writ petition. The petitioner did not submit any explanation to the previous charges and no enquiry was conducted by the appointing any authority. Dharmika Parishad has framed charges afresh. The petitioner has not pleaded any malafide exercise of power by the members of the A.P. Dharmika Parishad and eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Petitioner filed a reply to counter affidavit. It was contended that challenging the vires of Act 33 of 2007, which empowers the Dharmika Parishad to act against Mathadipati, petitioner filed W.P.No.16954 of 2023. Pending the interim order in W.A.No.258 of 2006, the appointment of fit person does not arise, and it is an illegal act. If the respondents intended to appoint a fit person, they must approach the High Court. Till today, the impugned proceedings have not served on the petitioner. Since the respondents sealed the residence and office, petitioner went to Ayodhya and suffered from ill-health. If the respondents intended to appoint a fit person, they must approach the High Court. Till today, the impugned proceedings have not served on the petitioner. Since the respondents sealed the residence and office, petitioner went to Ayodhya and suffered from ill-health. Pending the writ petition, Dharmika Parishad by order dated 12.07.2023 appointed a three-member committee to enquire into said 16 charges and submit report by 24.07.2023. A notice dated 14.07.2023 was sent to the petitioner through Whatsapp and directed the petitioner to attend the enquiry on 19.07.2023. Since the petitioner is out of station and suffered from viral fever, got issued a legal notice dated 17.07.2023 requesting the Dharmika Parishad to direct the concerned to serve all the documents, suspension order and, also sought one month time to submit statement of defence and to attend enquiry. The Committee, without giving any opportunity, conducted enquiry and is taking steps to submit report to the Dharmika Parishad. The Executive Officer of TTD addressed letter dated 12.07.2023 to the Government to hand over Japali Anjaneya Swami Temple, Venugopala Swamy Temple and Muggubavi Anjaneya swamy Temple to TTD. 5. Heard Sri L.Ravichander, learned senior counsel representing Ms.Vinodin Ruth, learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Advocate General for the respondents 1 to 4. 6. Learned senior counsel would submit that the order of suspension of the petitioner pending the enquiry suffers from colorable exercise of powers. The proceedings are automation, but not application of mind. He would also submit that the charges framed on an earlier occasion and charges framed, now are one and the same and in fact, some of the charges were given up. He would submit that when suspension is warranted, interim Mahanth shall be appointed, and the Government officer cannot be appointed to carry out religious functions and the appointment of a fit person is contrary to the orders in W.A.No.258 of 2006. He would further submit that order of suspension is improper exercise of power and for extraneous reasons. He would submit that the 2nd respondent failed to satisfy the test of perfunctory manner and the order of suspension is a command performance and the command performance is based on circumstances of each case. Thus prayed to set aside the proceedings. 7. He would further submit that order of suspension is improper exercise of power and for extraneous reasons. He would submit that the 2nd respondent failed to satisfy the test of perfunctory manner and the order of suspension is a command performance and the command performance is based on circumstances of each case. Thus prayed to set aside the proceedings. 7. Per contra, learned Advocate General would submit that all the religious affairs are being performed by Poojari and to conduct secular affairs only, temporarily fit person is appointed and the suspension of petitioner is only pending enquiry. He would also submit that without submitting an explanation, the petitioner filed writ petition. The members of Dharmika Parishad unanimously resolved to authorize the legal officer to prepare charges in a meeting held on 09.05.2023. He would also submit that the Dharmika Parishad applied its mind to the charges and suspended the petitioner pending the enquiry, since the charges are grave in nature. He would submit that the reply filed by the petitioner is beyond the pleadings. Despite service of notice the petitioner failed to participate in the enquiry. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 8. Whether the framing of charges, suspending the petitioner pending enquiry and appointing fit person to the Math to conduct secular activities suffers from colorable exercise of power, command performance etc. or is in accordance with provisions of Act 30 of 1987? 9. Before delving into the matter, it is appropriate to consider the judicial precedents on the doctrine of colorable exercise of power. “Colourable exercise means that under the “colour” or “guise” of power conferred for one purpose, the authority is seeking to achieve something else which it is not authorized to do under the law in question.” 10. In Devinder Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors., (2008) 1 SCC 728 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus: 32. When an order is passed without jurisdiction it amounts to colourable exercise of power. Formation of opinion must precede application of mind. Such application of mind must be on the materials brought on records. The materials should be such which are required to be collected by the authorities entitled therefore. The authorities must act within the fourcorners of the statute. When an order is passed without jurisdiction it amounts to colourable exercise of power. Formation of opinion must precede application of mind. Such application of mind must be on the materials brought on records. The materials should be such which are required to be collected by the authorities entitled therefore. The authorities must act within the fourcorners of the statute. An opinion formed even on the basis of an advice by an authority which is not contemplated under the statute render the decision bad in law. A statutory authority is bound by the procedure laid down in the statute and must act within the fourcorners thereof. 11. In Kalabharati Advertising vs. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania and Ors., (2010) 9 SCC 437 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus: “25. The State is under obligation to act fairly without ill will or malice- in fact or in law. "Legal malice" or "malice in law" means something done without lawful excuse. It is an act done wrongfully and wilfully without reasonable or probable cause, and not necessarily an act done from ill feeling and spite. It is a deliberate act in disregard to the rights of others. Where malice is attributed to the State, it can never be a case of personal ill-will or spite on the part of the State. It is an act which is taken with an oblique or indirect object. It means exercise of statutory power for "purposes foreign to those for which it is in law intended." It means conscious violation of the law to the prejudice of another, a depraved inclination on the part of the authority to disregard the rights of others, which intent is manifested by its injurious acts.” 12. In State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Gurdial Singh and Ors., (1980) 2 SCC 471 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus: “8. Legal malice is gibberish unless juristic clarity keeps it separate from the popular concept of personal vice. Pithily put, bad faith which invalidates the exercise of power sometimes called colourable exercise or fraud on power and oftentimes overlaps motives, passions and satisfactions is the attainment of ends beyond the sanctioned purposes "of power by simulation or pretension of gaining a legitimate goal. If the use of the power is for the fulfilment of a legitimate object the actuation or catalysation by malice is not legicidal. If the use of the power is for the fulfilment of a legitimate object the actuation or catalysation by malice is not legicidal. The action is bad where the true object is to reach an end different from the one for which the power is entrusted, goaded by extraneous considerations, good or bad, but irrelevant to the entrustment. When the custodian of power is influenced in its exercise by considerations outside those for promotion of which the power is vested the court calls it a colourable exercise and is undeceived by illusion. In a broad, blurred sense, Benjamin Disraeli was not off the mark even in Law when he stated: "I repeat that all power is a trust that we are accountable for its exercise that, from the people, and for the people, all springs, and all must exist". 9. Fraud on power voids the order if it is not exercised bona fide for the end designed. Fraud in this context is not equal to moral turpitude and embraces all cases in which the action impugned is to effect some object which is beyond the purpose and intent of the power, whether this be malices-laden or even benign. If the purpose is corrupt the resultant act is bad. If considerations, foreign to the scope of the power or extraneous to the statute, enter the verdict or impel the action mala fides or fraud on power, vitiates the acquisition or other official act.” 13. The case at hand, based on complaints received against the petitioner charges were framed and pending enquiry petitioner was kept under suspension by proceedings dated 28-1-2020. The suspension order was suspended by the learned single Judge of this court in W.P.No.2391 of 2020. The argument weighed with Court, as seen from the interim order dated 10.02.2022, is lack of jurisdiction. In fact, learned senior counsel, as seen from the order, argued that proceedings dated 28.01.2020 of the Commissioner are totally without jurisdiction. Eventually, the said writ petition was allowed on 13.04.2023 and matter is remitted back to Dharmika Parishad. The argument weighed with Court, as seen from the interim order dated 10.02.2022, is lack of jurisdiction. In fact, learned senior counsel, as seen from the order, argued that proceedings dated 28.01.2020 of the Commissioner are totally without jurisdiction. Eventually, the said writ petition was allowed on 13.04.2023 and matter is remitted back to Dharmika Parishad. Operative of portion of the order reads as follows: “Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the stand taken by the learned advocate general and as the learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection for remitting back the matter, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order, vide Rc.No.DP1/19027(37)8/2018-2, dated 28-1-2020 passed by the 3rd respondent-commissioner of endowments, is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to Dharmika Parishad to proceed and take action in accordance with law, if it is advised to do so. Till the action/decision is taken by the Dharmika Parishad, the respondents are directed continue the petitioner as Mahant of Sri Swamy Hathiramji Math.” 14. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.571 Revenue (Endowment-I) Department dated 13-8-2022 constituting Dharmika Parishad. After the Parishad was constituted, 5th meeting was conducted on 08.06.2023. As seen from the resolution filed along with the counter affidavit, pursuant to the resolution of A.P.Dharmika Parishad on 09.05.2023 the legal advisor working in the office of the Commissioner, Endowment Department prepared articles of draft charges against Sri Arjun Doss, petitioner herein. The Chairman of A.P. Dharkika Parishad requested the member secretary to place the articles of draft charges etc., before Dharmika Parishad in its 5th meeting to be held on 08.06.2023. 15. All the members of A.P. Dharmika Parishad unanimously approved the charges and requested the member secretary of Parishad to serve the same to Sri Arjun Doss, petitioner herein. All the members of Parishad unanimously resolved to place the petitioner under suspension pending passing orders under Sec 51(2) of the Act. Members of Parishad also resolved to appoint fit person to the Math to look after day-to-day administration management on secular affairs pending enquiry of the claims of the disciples of Math, if any as required under Sec 51(2) of the Act. 16. Members of Parishad also resolved to appoint fit person to the Math to look after day-to-day administration management on secular affairs pending enquiry of the claims of the disciples of Math, if any as required under Sec 51(2) of the Act. 16. Thus, a careful perusal of the resolution filed along with the counter affidavit, in the considered opinion of this court, the resolution was passed after application of mind but not under the dictation of any third party. 17. Learned senior counsel argued that the result of command performance. Command performance is a special performance of a play or film that is given because of a royal or very important person has asked for it as per Cambridge English dictionary. 18. A Command performance is a special performance of a play or show which is given for a head of state as per Collins English dictionary. 19. It is not the case of the petitioner that at the behest of any third-party proceedings were initiated against him. Based on the complaints, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. Of course, on an earlier occasion also petitioner was suspended by farming charges similar to the charges farmed now. In fact, some of the charges earlier farmed are not part of the charges now framed against the petitioner. However, at no stage the enquiry was conducted qua the charges. 20. At this nascent stage, this Court normally shall not go into merit or demerit of charges levelled against the petitioner. During the enquiry based on the material, the authority will decide, as to the merit or demerit of the charges framed against the petitioner. 21. As seen from the pleading, it is not the case of the petitioner that the authority issued the proceedings lacks jurisdiction. If the authority had the jurisdiction to issue the proceedings i.e. framing charges and keeping the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry, this court normally will not go deep as to whether the charges framed against the petitioner are relevant or not. Any finding recorded by the court at this stage, will prejudice both the parties. It is also not out of place to mention here that on earlier occasions, when the authority framed charges and kept the petitioner under suspension, this court interfered with such an act on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. No enquiry was conducted as to the charges levelled against the petitioner. It is also not out of place to mention here that on earlier occasions, when the authority framed charges and kept the petitioner under suspension, this court interfered with such an act on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. No enquiry was conducted as to the charges levelled against the petitioner. 22. Even, it is not the case of the petitioner that earlier an enquiry was concluded, and petitioner was absolved of the charges and again the petitioner was charged with the same imputations. 23. Thus, the discussion made supra, in the considered opinion of this court that framing charges against the petitioner and keeping the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry do not suffer from vice of colorable exercise of power, command performance, non-application of mind. 24. As seen from the resolution dated 08.06.2003 filed along with the counter affidavit, pursuant to the resolution of Parishad on 09.05.2023 articles of charges were prepared, and the members of the Parishad approved the same. Thus, the act of framing charges and approving of the same by members of Parishad cannot be termed as perfunctory. Facts of each case need to be considered as to whether the act is perfunctory or not. Though, in the first place it is appealing that petitioner is targeted, however, as seen from the facts of this case, no enquiry has been conducted so far qua the allegations made against the petitioner. As discussed supra, the earlier proceedings were interdicted by the Court on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction. Thus, the authorities acted in accordance with the procedure and hence it cannot be termed that the authorities acted in a perfunctory manner. 25. Regarding the power of the Parishad to initiate the proceedings, Section 51 of the Act deals with the situation 51. Thus, the authorities acted in accordance with the procedure and hence it cannot be termed that the authorities acted in a perfunctory manner. 25. Regarding the power of the Parishad to initiate the proceedings, Section 51 of the Act deals with the situation 51. Removal of Mathadhipathi – (1) The Dharmika Parishad may suo motu or on an application of two or more persons having interest initiate proceedings for removing a mathadhipathi or a trustee of a specific endowment attached to a math, if he,- (a) is of unsound mind; (b) is suffering from any physical or mental defect or infirmity which renders him unfit to be a mathadhipathi or such trustee; (c) has ceased to profess the Hindu religion or the tenets of the math; (d) has been sentenced for any offence involving moral turpitude, such sentence not having been reversed; (e) is guilty of breach of trust, or mis-appropriation in respect of any of the properties of the math; (f) commits persistent and wilful default in the exercise of his powers or performance of his functions under this Act; (g) violate any of the restrictions imposed or practices enjoined by the custom, usage or the tenets of the math, in relation to his personal conduct, such as celibacy, renunciation and the like; (h) leads an immoral life; or (i) fails or ignores to implement the principles set out in Clause (17) of Section 2. (2) The Dharmika Parishad shall frame a charge on any of the grounds specified in sub-section (1) against the mathadhipathi or trustee concerned and give him an opportunity of meeting such charge, of testing the evidence adduced and of adducing evidence in his favour. After considering the evidence adduced and other material before him, the Dharmika Parishad may, by order exonerate the mathadhipathi or trustee, or remove him. Every such order shall state the charge framed against the mathadhipathi or the trustee, his explanation and the finding on such charge together with the reasons therefor: Provided that in the case of a math or specific endowment attached thereto whose annual income exceeds rupees one lakh, the order of removal passed by the Dharmika Parishad against the mathadhipathi or trustee shall not take effect unless it is confirmed by the Government. (3) Pending the passing of an order under sub-section (2); the Dharmika Parishad may suspend the mathadhipathi or the trustee. (3) Pending the passing of an order under sub-section (2); the Dharmika Parishad may suspend the mathadhipathi or the trustee. (4)(a) Any mathadhipathi or trustee aggrieved by an order passed by the Dharmika Parishad under subsection (2) may within ninety days from the date of the order appeal to the High Court against such order. (b) An appeal shall lie to the High Court within ninety days from the date of a decree or order of the Court in such suit. 26. Section 51 (3) of the Act makes it clear that pending passing of an order under Sub Section (2), the Dharmika Parishad may suspend the Mathadhipati or the trustee. 27. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sri Digyadarsan Rajendra Ramdassjivaru Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, (1969) 1 SCC 844 , considered the constitutionality of Section 46 and 47 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 (17 of 1966). The petitioner therein was placed under suspension. The Assistant Director of Tirupati was directed to take charge of Math and its affairs. In that connection, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed qua the power of the Government thus: “8. The suspension of a mathadhipathi, during the inquiry, is a necessary and reasonable part of the procedure which has been prescribed by Section 46. If he is allowed to function during the pendency of an inquiry the entire purpose of the enquiry might be defeated. The mathadhipathi, may, during the pendency of the inquiry, do away with most of the evidence or tamper with the books of account or otherwise commit acts of misappropriation and defalcation in respect of the properties of the math. It is essential, therefore, in these circumstances to make a provision for suspending him till the enquiry concludes and an order is made either exonerating him or directing his removal." 10. … … In the present case, the Assistant Commissioner has been appointed as a day to-day administrator because of the inquiry which is pending against the petitioner and in which serious charges of misappropriation and defalcation of trust funds and leading an immoral life are being investigated. It cannot be said that Section 47 would be hit by Article 26(d) of the Constitution as the powers under it will be exercised, inter alia, when mismanagement of property or maladministration of trust funds are involved.” 28. It cannot be said that Section 47 would be hit by Article 26(d) of the Constitution as the powers under it will be exercised, inter alia, when mismanagement of property or maladministration of trust funds are involved.” 28. Case at hand, 16 charges were framed against the petitioner. Some of the charges are extracted hereunder: CHARGE:1 1. That he has submitted following landed property details held by the subject Math through his office Letter No.B4/405/2014, dated 16.09.2014. Total extent Ac.cts Land Sold Ac.cts Land under Lease + Mutt Possession Ac.cts Land under encroachment /litigation Ac.cts 1634.83 459.42 216.23 1418.60 The report shows that he has utterly failed to take necessary action against encroachments of the subject Math lands U/s 83 to 86 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 30/1987 and thus, he fails to protect the landed property of the subject Math and violated the orders of Hon’ble Court in its order Dt.07.09.2006 in W.A.V.M.P.No.1534/2006 in W.A.No.259/2006. CHARGE:2 2. That he has submitted following landed property details held by the subject Math which are situated at Karnataka State through his office Letter No.B4/405/2014, dated 16.09.2014. Total extent Covered by Structures Under Encroachment Under Encroachment 4713 Sq. Mts Covered by E.P.202/2005, Bangalore City Civil Court The subject Math has taken possession certain extent of above property through Court of Law but appropriate action was not taken and no report was submitted by him with regard to the extent taken by the Mutt. Further with regard to the balance of the land to be recovered, he fails to submit periodical report to the Commissioner and did not take any guidelines from this office to protect the properties. The report shows that he has utterly failed to take necessary action against encroachments of the subject Math lands U/s 83 to 86 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 30/1987 and thus, he fails to protect the landed property of the subject Math and violated the orders of Hon’ble Court in its order Dt.07.09.2006 in W.A.V.M.P.No.1534/2006 in W.A.No.259/2006. CHARGE:3 3. That he has submitted following landed property details held by the subject Math which are situated at Tamilnadu State through his office Letter No.B4/405/2014, dated 16.09.2014. Total extent Description Ac.162.89 cents 1978 Sq. yds 55 grounds 4800 Sq. CHARGE:3 3. That he has submitted following landed property details held by the subject Math which are situated at Tamilnadu State through his office Letter No.B4/405/2014, dated 16.09.2014. Total extent Description Ac.162.89 cents 1978 Sq. yds 55 grounds 4800 Sq. Fts 2.4.12 Kanis Lands Sites Structures Sites lands The present Mahanth fails to submit factual reports pertaining to above property and no lease proposals in public auction submitted to the competent authority i.e. Commissioner of Endowments for enhancement of rents, lease amounts. Whereas complaints are received that without obtaining any approval orders from this office, he used to renew the leases in favour of sitting tenants and sub-tenants and helping the unauthorized occupants duly violating the procedure laid down under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 30/1987. The report shows that he has utterly failed to take necessary action against encroachments of the subject Math lands U/s 83 to 86 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 30/1987 and thus fails to protect the landed property of the subject Math and violated the orders of Hon’ble Court in its order Dt.07.09.2006 in W.A.V.M.P.No.1534/2006 in W.A.No.259/2006. CHARGE:4 4. It is noticed that the Guntur Seshaiah, R/o Vijayawada filed O.S.No.4720/2005 before the Hon’ble High Court, Madras and sought orders from the Court for purchase of the mutt property situated in Sy.No.627 etc., at Rayapeta Highway Road Chennai belonging to subject Math, which is against the directions of Hon’ble High Court in W.A.V.M.P.No.1535/2006 in W.A.No.258/2006 AND W.A.V.M.P.No.1534/2006 in W.A.No.259/2006. But the Mahanth has not taken any action and to vacate the interim orders of the Hon’ble High Court or to report to the same to the Commissioner of Endowments to obtain necessary order from this office though he was directed to submit his report vide this office Rc.No.N1/40944/2009, Dt.9.10.2009 and violated the orders of Hon’ble Court in its order Dt.07.09.2006 in W.A.V.M.P.No.1534/2006 in W.A.No.259/2006. CHARGE:5 5. That he violated the orders of Hon’ble High Court in W.A.V.M.P.No.1535/2006 in W.A.No.258/2006 AND W.A.V.M.P.No.1534/2006 in W.A.No.259/2006, and illegally entered into agreement with M/s Billiyards Farms Private Limited and to sell away Mutt property of Ac.53.27 cents covered under Sy.No.13, 15, 17/2, 3 & 5 at Avilala village on master rate of Rs.16 crores without following procedure laid down U/Sec.80 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 30/1987. 29. 29. A perusal of some of the charges extracted supra, prima facie, the charges are grave in nature. Petitioner have to submit an explanation. In case the charges alleged against the petitioner are not proved, the authority will take appropriate decision. Suspending a person pending enquiry depends upon the charges leveled against such person. 30. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, (2013) 16 SCC 147, held thus: “21. The power of suspension should not be exercised in an arbitrary manner and without any reasonable ground or as vindictive misuse of power. Suspension should be made only in a case where there is a strong prima facie case against the delinquent employee and the allegations involving moral turpitude, grave misconduct or indiscipline or refusal to carry out the orders of superior authority are there, or there is a strong prima facie case against him, if proved, would ordinarily result in reduction in rank, removal or dismissal from service. The authority should also take into account all the available material as to whether in a given case, it is advisable to allow the delinquent to continue to perform his duties in the office or his retention in office is likely to hamper or frustrate the inquiry. 22. In view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that suspension order can be passed by the competent authority considering the gravity of the alleged misconduct i.e. serious act of omission or commission and the nature of evidence available. It cannot be actuated by mala fide, arbitrariness, or for ulterior purpose. Effect on public interest due to the employee's continuation in office is also a relevant and determining factor. The facts of each case have to be taken into consideration as no formula of universal application can be laid down in this regard. However, suspension order should be passed only where there is a strong prima facie case against the delinquent, and if the charges stand proved, would ordinarily warrant imposition of major punishment i.e. removal or dismissal from service, or reduction in rank, etc.” 31. In State of Orissa Vs. Bimal Kumar Mohanty, (1994) 4 SCC 126 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus: “11. In State of Orissa Vs. Bimal Kumar Mohanty, (1994) 4 SCC 126 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus: “11. It is thus settled law that normally when an appointing authority or the disciplinary authority seeks to suspend an employee, pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or pending investigation into grave charges of misconduct or defalcation of funds or serious acts of omission and commission, the order of suspension would be passed after taking into consideration the gravity of the misconduct sought to be inquired into or investigated and the nature of the evidence placed before the appointing authority and on application of the mind by disciplinary authority. Appointing authority or disciplinary authority should consider the above aspects and decide whether it is expedient to keep an employee under suspension pending aforesaid action. It would not be as an administrative routine or an automatic order to suspend an employee. It should be on consideration of the gravity of the alleged misconduct or the nature of the allegations inputted to the delinquent employee. The Court or the Tribunal must consider each case on its own facts and no general law could be laid down in that behalf. Suspension is not a punishment but is only one of forbidding or disabling an employee to discharge the duties of office or post held by him. In other words it is to refrain him to avail further opportunity to perpetrate the alleged misconduct or to remove the impression among the members of service that dereliction of duty would pay fruits and the offending employee could get away even pending enquiry without any impediment or to prevent an opportunity to the delinquent officer to scuttle the enquiry or investigation or to win over the witnesses or the delinquent having had the opportunity in office to impede the progress of the investigation or enquiry etc. But as stated earlier, each case must be considered depending on the nature of the allegations, gravity of the situation and the indelible impact it creates on the service for the continuance of the delinquent employee in service pending enquiry or contemplated enquiry or investigation. It would be another thing if the action is actuated by mala fides, arbitrary or for ulterior purpose. The suspension must be a step in aid to the ultimate result of the investigation or enquiry.” 32. It would be another thing if the action is actuated by mala fides, arbitrary or for ulterior purpose. The suspension must be a step in aid to the ultimate result of the investigation or enquiry.” 32. Thus, suspension pending enquiry should be on application of mind qua the gravity of the charges against such person. As observed supra, the charges framed against the petitioner prima facie, grave in nature. The charges include misappropriation of funds and also moral turpitude. Of Course, this Court is not giving any finding qua the charges at this nascent stage. It is the authority, subject to the petitioner’s explanation and considering the relevant documents, will decide the truth or otherwise of the charges. There is no quarrel regarding the proposition that the suspension pending enquiry is not automatic. In fact, there is no dispute regarding this proposition and the judgments cited by the learned senior counsel in that regard. The facts of each case are to be considered qua the charges. 33. The contention of learned senior counsel regarding appointment of fit person after suspending the petitioner is contra to the order in W.A.No.258 of 2006 is not appealing for the time being. While appointing the fit person, it was mentioned in the proceedings that “… …is hereby placed a fit person to Sri Math, Tirupati purely on temporary basis to look after its day to day management on secular affairs of the Math till further order subject to consider the claims of disciples of the Math, if any, by Dharmika Parishad under sub-section 2 of Section 51 of the Act. 34. In fact, one of the disciples filed W.P.No.18578 of 2023 to consider his candidature to appoint him as interim Mahanth. The said writ petition was disposed of on 08.09.2023. Learned Government Pleader Endowments would submit that apart from the petitioner in that writ petition, some of the disciples also made applications. The Dharmika Parishad will consider and pass appropriate orders. The said writ petition was disposed of. In view of the same, appointment of fit person, for the time being, is only temporary measure and hence, it is not in violation of order in W.A.No.258 of 2006. 35. In respect of daily religious activities in the Math, learned Advocate General would contend that the daily rituals are being performed by the Poojaris. 36. In view of the same, appointment of fit person, for the time being, is only temporary measure and hence, it is not in violation of order in W.A.No.258 of 2006. 35. In respect of daily religious activities in the Math, learned Advocate General would contend that the daily rituals are being performed by the Poojaris. 36. During the arguments, learned Advocate General pointed out that the petitioner is not cooperating with the enquiry and in fact, the petitioner did not attend the enquiry. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that even the charge memo is not served on the petitioner. In fact, petitioner by notice through his advocate sought more time to submit explanation, however, without considering the same, the authorities are proceeding with the enquiry. Any finding in this regard, in the opinion of this Court, is beyond the relief sought for in the writ petition and hence this Court is not expressing its opinion in that regard. 37. In Union of India Vs. Dinesh Prasad, (2012) 12 SCC 63 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that no relief to a party can be granted on the grounds not taken in the writ petition as it is not permissible for the Court to grant the relief beyond pleadings. 38. In Akella Lalitha Vs. Konda Hanumantha Rao, 2023 (5) ALT 9 (SC) = 2022 SCC OnLine SC 928, while dealing with a special leave petition based on child custody matter under the family law, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 held as under: 16. … … It is settled law that relief not found on pleadings should not be granted. If a Court considers or grants a relief for which no prayer or pleading was made depriving the respondent of an opportunity to oppose or resist such relief, it would lead to miscarriage of justice. 17. In the case of Trojan & Co. Ltd. Vs. Rm.N.N. Nagappa Chettiar ((1953) 1 SCC 456: AIR 1953 SC 235 ), this Court considered the issue as to whether relief not asked for by a party could be granted and that too without having proper pleadings. The Court held as under:— “It is well settled that the decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties and it is the case pleaded that has to be found. The Court held as under:— “It is well settled that the decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties and it is the case pleaded that has to be found. Without an amendment of the plaint, the Court was not entitled to grant the relief not asked for and no prayer was ever made to amend the plaint so as to incorporate in it an alternative case.” 18. In the case of Bharat Amratlal Kothari Vs. Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi ( (2010) 1 SCC 234 ) held: “Though the Court has very wide discretion in granting relief, the Court, however, cannot, ignoring and keeping aside the norms and principles governing grant of relief, grant a relief not even prayed for by the petitioner.” 39. In view of the discussion made supra, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition. The Writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 40. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.