Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 242 (AP)

Sitarama Swamy Temple v. Principle Secretary

2025-02-07

K.MANMADHA RAO

body2025
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief : "......to or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in appointing the 5th respondent as a single trustee of the petitioner temple by proceedings RC No.A1/8877/2013 dated 08.08.2013 is illegal and arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India Consequently set aside the same and pass...." 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent in appointing the 5th respondent as a Single Trustee of the petitioner temple vide Proceeding Rc.No.A1/8877/2013 dated 08.08.2013. The petitioner's Great Grandfather by name Sri Chelakani Dhramrayanam was constructed the petitioner Temple. Being founder, he was continued as Managing Trustee. After demise of his great grandfather as a successor of the Founder Trustee of his grandfather, his father was appointed as a founder trustee. After demise of the petitioner's father his mother was looking after the affairs of the temple as a successor, now recently she was also died leaving behind the petitioner and his brother. Since his brother has no interest to continue as trustee he appointed the petitioner as managing trustee being successor of petitioner's mother. The main grievance of the petitioner is that, as the Archaka of the Temple trying to alienate the property of the petitioner temple, they have resisted by filing a suit in OS No.1088/2000 for permanent injunction which was decreed in favour of the temple. Questioning the said decree they preferred appeal which was rejected for want of pecuniary jurisdiction and same was carried to this Hon'ble Court by way of CRP which is pending. Inspite of injunction granted by the Competent Civil Court the petitioners are obstructing to cultivate the lands. Therefore, they filed EP No.125/2008 for arrest in violation of Court orders which was dismissed against which the petitioner filed CRP No.2180/2013. It is further stated that the 3rd respondent at the instigation of unsuccessful parties in civil litigation, has been initiated impugned proceedings, basing on the alleged report, submitted by the 4th respondent, vide Rc.No.A3/6493/2013 dated 27.07.2013 which was not known to the petitioner. It is further stated that the 3rd respondent at the instigation of unsuccessful parties in civil litigation, has been initiated impugned proceedings, basing on the alleged report, submitted by the 4th respondent, vide Rc.No.A3/6493/2013 dated 27.07.2013 which was not known to the petitioner. It is further stated that the high handed action of the 3rd respondent in appointing the 5th respondent as a Single trustee of the petitioner temple amounts to termination of petitioner's successive founder trustee, it is utter violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and against principles of natural justice. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. The counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.3 denying the allegations made in the petition. In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that, the petitioner cannot say that she is the hereditary trustee. She was never declared as a hereditary trustee to the temple at any point of time. Nor there was any entry in the property register indicating the existence of the hereditary trusteeship. The petitioner does not have any declaration as a founder family member. Even as per Section 17 of the A.P. Charitable Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987, the petitioner cannot be declared as a Founder Family Member since only the heir in agnatic line of succession has to be considered. In fact Sri Chelikani Dharma Rayanam was not the person who constructed the temple and the petitioners cannot claim that he is the founder of the temple. It is stated that, the single trustee appointed has taken oath of the Seetarama Swamy Vari Temple, Aryavatam Village on 16.08.2013 and issued the public auction notice dated 02.09.2013 indicating the date of auction as 12.09.2014. One Sri Velagala Sathi Reddy, S/o. Raja Reddy became the highest bidder offering a sum of Rs.2,30,000/- annual rent for the period from 12.09.2013 to 11.09.2016. The highest bidder has paid the rent for the year 12.09.2013 to 11.09.2013 for an amount of Rs.2,30,000/-. The auction particulars were forwarded to the competent authority on 12.09.2013 and the same was approved by the Assistant Commissioner on 13.09.2013 and the highest bidder was handed over possession on 12.09.2013 itself. The GPA Holder was issued notice dated 18.08.2013 duly asking him to handover the records of the temple. But there is no response from the neither the GPA holder nor the petitioner. The GPA Holder was issued notice dated 18.08.2013 duly asking him to handover the records of the temple. But there is no response from the neither the GPA holder nor the petitioner. There are absolutely no merits in the above writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 4. The counter-affidavit has been filed by 5th respondent adopting the averments made in the counter-affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent. 5. Heard Sri N.A. Ramachandra Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondents. 6. On hearing, learned Counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents made in the petition, submits that the 3rd respondent at the instigation of the unsuccessful parties in civil litigation has been initiated impugned proceedings basing on the alleged report submitted by the 4th respondent. He further submits that the high handed action of the 3rd respondent in appointing the 5th respondent as a single trustee of the petitioner temple amounts to termination of petitioner's successive founder trustee, which is utter violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also against the principles of natural justice. 7. To support his contentions, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of High Court of Judicature, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad reported in Balusu Kesava Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2015 (6) ALD 282 , wherein it was held that the very purpose of appointing a single trustee is defeated if person so appointed unable to spent his time to temple. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner while relying upon the above decision, submits that, without having any irregularities the respondents cannot have right to appoint single trustee, even otherwise also a Board can be appointed if any irregularities proved. Therefore, learned Counsel prayed to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order. 9. Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, while reiterating the contents made in the counter-affidavits, opposed for allowing the writ petition and prayed to dismiss the same. 10. The point for consideration is whether the appointment of 5th respondent as a single trustee to the petitioner temple is legal and valid? 11. 9. Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, while reiterating the contents made in the counter-affidavits, opposed for allowing the writ petition and prayed to dismiss the same. 10. The point for consideration is whether the appointment of 5th respondent as a single trustee to the petitioner temple is legal and valid? 11. It is pertinent to mention here that the scope of Sections 15, 18 and 19 of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short "the Act, 1987") and A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments, appointment of Trustee Rules, 1987 (Rules, 1987). Section 15 of the Act deals with appointment of Board of Trustees. According to sub-section (2), if the income of temple is less than Rs.2.00 lakhs, the Deputy Commissioner can constitute a Board of Trustees consisting of three persons. However the first proviso appended to sub-section (2) enables the Deputy Commissioner to appoint single trustee instead of board of trustees. Such discretion vested in terms of the first proviso is subject to satisfying conditions mentioned therein, i.e., should be in the interest of institution or endowment or any other sufficient cause or reason to be recorded in writing. Section 18 of the Act prescribes qualifications for appointment of a trustee. So far as this case is concerned, clause (d) is relevant. According to this clause, the person who is to be appointed as trustee should have sufficient time and interest to attend to the affairs of the institution. Section 19 of the Act, 1987, prescribes 11 disqualifications in sub-section (1). Insofar as this case is concerned, rival contentions are on the scope of sub-section (1)(g) of Section 19 of the Act. According to sub-section (1)(g) if a person is an office holder or servant attached to, or a person in receipt of emoluments or perquisite from subject institution or endowment, he is not qualified to be appointed as trustee. 12. In exercise of power vested by the Act, 1987, Rules, 1987 were notified. The Rules, 1987 lay down detail procedure for appointment of trustees. According to Rule 4, there must be a public notice in Form-I intending to constitute Board of Trustees and calling for willingness of persons for appointment as members of the trust board. Rules prescribe wide publicity of such intention. The Rules, 1987 lay down detail procedure for appointment of trustees. According to Rule 4, there must be a public notice in Form-I intending to constitute Board of Trustees and calling for willingness of persons for appointment as members of the trust board. Rules prescribe wide publicity of such intention. On receipt of applications in response to such notification, the competent authority should cause verification of the antecedents, scrutinize their applications and pass orders appointing selected persons as trustees. Thus, the scheme of the Act and the Rules made thereunder envisage detailed procedure for appointment of persons to the Board of Trustees of a temple. 13. This Court further observed that, on a plain reading of the first proviso appended to Section 15(2) of the Act, 1987, it is clear that discretion vested in the Deputy Commissioner is only to the extent of appointing a single trustee instead of three members to a temple having less than Rs.2.00 lakhs income. This proviso does not vest power in the Deputy Commissioner to appoint a person as a single trustee without following due procedure as envisaged in the Rules, 1987. Thus, whether three members are appointed to the Board of trustees or a single member, the procedure as envisaged in Rule 1987 has to be followed. Even such discretion is constrained by the requirements as prescribed in the first proviso. It is thus clear that it is an exceptional power which can be exercised in extraordinary circumstances but not as a matter of course. 14. Even assuming that, Deputy Commissioner is competent to appoint a single trustee without following due procedure, on a cumulative reading of Sections 15, 18 and 19 read with Rules, 1987, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Act does not envisage appointment of Officers of the Endowment Department as trustees. Such appointment is contrary to the statutory mandate. Section 29 of the Act is comprehensive provision dealing with appointment of Executive Officers to various categories of temples. Whenever there is a requirement to ensure proper administration of Section 6(c) temple, power is vested in the competent authority of the Endowment Department to appoint an Executive Officer. That Executive Officer is entitled to take all administrative decisions and manage the affairs of the temple. This makes it clear that Act does not envisage any role to permanent officers of the Department to act as trustee. 15. That Executive Officer is entitled to take all administrative decisions and manage the affairs of the temple. This makes it clear that Act does not envisage any role to permanent officers of the Department to act as trustee. 15. According to third proviso to Section 15(2) of the Act, 1987, the recognized founder or member of the founder family shall discharge the functions of the board of trustees. In the absence of Executive Officer or founder family member, or trust board is not constituted within the period specified, the Commissioner is competent to make arrangements to look after the affairs of the institution during the interregnum period between the date of expiry of the terms of the Trust Board and Constitution of the new Trust Board. In the instant case, since the petitioner's brother has no interest to continue as a trustee, he appointed the petitioner as managing trustee being successor of his mother. 16. Admittedly, the procedure as envisaged in the Act read with Rules, 1987 is not followed before appointing the 7th respondent as single trustee. Such appointment is ex facie illegal as no such power is vested in the Deputy Commissioner to appoint a single trustee without following due procedure. Furthermore, there is merit in the contention urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in accordance with the provision contained in Section 18(d), person appointed as a trustee, more so if he is a single trustee, should have sufficient time and interest to attend to the affairs of the institution. The very purpose to appoint a single trustee is defeated if a person so appointed is unable to spare his time to the temple. Thus, in terms of the provision contained in Section 18(d), the 5th respondent is not qualified to be appointed as single trustee. 17. In view of the above foregoing discussion, this Court deems fit to allow the present writ petition while declaring the impugned proceedings as illegal and arbitrary. 18. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings vide Rc.No.A1/8877/2013, dated 08.08.2013 issued by the 3rd respondent is hereby set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. 19. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending, in this writ petition, shall stand closed.