HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
W.P.No.21986 of 2020
ORDER:
The 1st petitioner is a society set up for managing the activities of Sri Venkateswara Swamy Devalayam in Venkateswarapuram, Nellore Town. The 2nd petitioner is said to be the president of 1st petitioner and a devotee of the deity in the above temple.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that this temple had been constructed with the contributions of the people in the local area and that the 1st petitioner had further developed the temple and is ensuring that all the religious ceremonies, including daily poojas, are performed properly in the temple. It is stated that there are four hundis set up in the temple for devotees to contribute for the upkeep and maintenance of the temple and that these contributions are placed in a bank account which has been opened by the 1st petitioner in the 6th respondent-bank.
3. The petitioners received a notice from the 3rd respondent-Assistant Commissioner dated 23.10.2020, informing the 2nd petitioner that the 5th respondent- Executive Officer of Sri Talpagiri Ranganadha Swamy Temple, has been directed to take charge on the properties and records of the Temple as the 5th respondent had been appointed as the Executive Officer of the Temple by the 2nd respondent by proceedings dated 19.10.2020.
2 RRR,J
W.P.No.21986 of 2020
4. Aggrieved by this direction, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. It is the case of the petitioners that this temple is not a notified temple under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 [for the short "the 1987 Act"] and the respondents would have no jurisdiction to issue the impugned proceedings, dated 23.10.2020, and in any event, the impugned proceedings had been passed without any prior notice to the petitioners and has to be set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.
5. After receiving notice, the respondents have initially filed written instructions and subsequently counter affidavits. The stand of the respondents is that this temple has been recognised as a public temple falling within the ambit of the 1987 Act, by way of appropriate proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner Endowments and had been published as a temple falling under Section 6 (c) (ii) of the 1987 Act. It is stated that in view of the publication carried out in the year 1995 itself, the temple is a registered temple to which the provisions of Section 29 of 1987 Act, would apply.
6. It is further submitted by the respondents that the temple is a public temple, which is visited by all sections of the society, and funds are collected by way of donations from the general public. It is the further contention of the respondents that as there were some complaints against the functioning of 3 RRR,J W.P.No.21986 of 2020 the petitioners, as managers of the temple, a report was forwarded to the 2nd respondent-Commissioner, who had there upon appointed the 5th respondent as the Executive Officer of the temple vide proceedings in Memo No.E2/150121/225/2020, dated 19.10.2020 and the 3rd respondent had only issued a consequential order dated 23.10.2020, which is now impugned in the writ petition. The respondents justify the order of the 2nd respondent-Commissioner dated 19.10.2020 on the additional ground that the petitioners have never submitted their audited accounts or obtained necessary approved permissions, as required under the provisions of the 1987 Act, in relation to published temples under Section 6 (c) of the 1987 Act, and the Commissioner had appointed the Executive officer to set right the administration of the temple and to ensure compliance of the requirements of the 1987 Act.
7. After receipt of these counter affidavits, the petitioners had amended the prayer in the writ petition to challenge the proceedings of the 2nd respondent-Commissioner in RC.No.J3/4584/93, dated 22.11.1995, directing publication of the temple under Section of 6(c) (ii) of the 1987 Act, in the official Gazette, the Memo No.E2/150121/225/2020, dated 19.10.2020 issued by the 2nd respondent - Commissioner of Endowments appointing the 5th respondent as the Executive Officer of the temple. The petitioners also took the plea that the initial publication of the temple in the year 1995 was done without any notice being given to the petitioners and in fact the 4 RRR,J W.P.No.21986 of 2020 department had never pointed out this fact to the petitioners at any point of time and the petitioners have been running the affairs of the temple, as a temple, which does not fall within the purview of the 1987 Act.
8. After amendment of the prayer and the filing of the additional affidavits raising the new ground that notice had not been issued to the petitioners prior to publication, the respondents had filed additional counter affidavits. In these additional counter affidavits the respondents contend that no notice need be issued to the person in management under the Rules, before publishing the institution under Section 6 (c) of the 1987 Act.
9. The petitioners had relied upon the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Sri V.V.V.R.K. Yachendra Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh1 in this case a temple had been notified under Section 6 (c) (ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966,( hereinafter referred to as the 1966 Act) on 06.04.1976, as a public temple. The person in management of the temple, on the ground that he came to know on the said notification only in September, 1983 had approached the Court for setting aside the said notification on the ground that the notice had not been given to the person in management. The Learned Government Pleader had taken the stand that the 1 1987 (1) ALT 256 5 RRR,J W.P.No.21986 of 2020 publication of the notification in the Gazette is itself a notice and in any event, there is no provision for notice being given to the person in management before registering the temple under the 1966 Act. The learned single Judge, after considering this contention, had held that even though there is no express provision in the section obliging the Commissioner to issue notice to the person in management a temple before enlisting it as a public temple, the general principles of natural justice are implicit in the 1966 Act and need to be complied with. On the said ratio, the learned Judge was pleased to set aside the order of enlisting of the temple under Section 6(c) of the 1966 Act, and left it open to the respondents to issue a fresh notice and consider the objections that may be filed by the person in management before taking a further decision in the matter.
10. In view of the aforesaid judgement which is binding on this Court, it must be held that the original notification of the temple in 1995 requires to be set aside on the ground of lack of notice to the persons in management of the temple before the temple was published under Section 6(c) (ii) of the 1987 Act.
11. Consequently, the order of the 2nd respondent dated 19.10.2020, appointing the 5th respondent as the Executive Officer of the temple would also have to go as Section 29, under which the said appointment is made, applies only to those institutions, which are enlisted under Section 6 of the 1987 Act.
6 RRR,J
W.P.No.21986 of 2020
12. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the proceedings in Rc.No.J34584/93, dated 22.11.1995 passed by the 2nd respondent-Commissioner of Endowments; the order of appointment of the 5th respondent as the Executive Officer of the temple, by the 2nd respondent in his Memo No.E2/15021/225/2020, dated 19.10.2020, and the proceedings of the 3rd respondent -Assistant Commissioner under a letter in Rc.No.A1/873/2020, dated 23.10.2020. However, this shall not preclude the respondents from initiating action, for fresh publication of Sri Venkateswara Swamy Devalayam in Venkateswarapuram, Nellore Town, under the provisions of Section 6 of the 1987 Act, after due and proper notice is given to the petitioners and after considering their objections.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
05-10- 2021
BSM
7 RRR,J
W.P.No.21986 of 2020
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
W.P.No.21986 of 2020
05-10-2021
BSM