Telangana High Court
Degala Prasad vs State Of Telangana on 2 July, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.7485 OF 2024
ORDER (per Hon'ble SP,J)
Sri M.Vidyasagar, learned counsel appears for the petitioners and Sri Bhukya Mangilal Naik, learned Government Pleader for Endowments appears for respondent Nos.1 and 3. Nobody appeared for State of Andhra Pradesh despite the reflection of name of learned counsel for State of Andhra Pradesh in the cause list.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the main temple namely, Sree Seetharamachandra Swamy Vari Devastanam, Bhadrachalam, is situated in the State of Telangana. Few properties of the said temple are situated in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioners received the impugned notices on various dates issued by respondent No.5 from the State of Andhra Pradesh alleging that the petitioners are using/enjoying the land of said temple without paying any taxes and therefore, they were directed to vacate the lands forthwith.
3. Criticizing the notice, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on a judgment of a Constituent Bench of Supreme Court in Anant Prasad Lakshminiwas Ganeriwal v. State of 2 Andhra Pradesh and others 1 and placed heavy reliance on the following paragraph:
"This decision in our opinion makes it abundantly clear that where the trust is situate in a particular State, the law of that State will apply to the trust, even though any part of the trust property, whether large or small, is situate outside the State where the trust is situate."
4. It is submitted that since the main temple is situated in Telangana, the authorities of Andhra Pradesh have no authority, jurisdiction and competence to put the petitioners to notice for alleged non-payment of taxes. It is the authorities of Telangana only who can take action.
5. Learned Government Pleader for Endowments, Telangana submits that the impugned notices are issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh and he, at present, has no role to play.
6. The Apex Court in Special director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse 2 laid down the law about scope of interference in a show cause notice and it reads as under:
"5. This Court in a large number of cases has deprecated the practice of the High Courts entertaining writ petitions questioning legality of the show-cause notices stalling enquiries as proposed and retarding investigative process to find actual facts with the participation and in the presence of the parties. Unless the High Court is satisfied that the show-cause notice was totally non est in the eye of the law for absolute want of jurisdiction of the authority to even investigate into facts, writ petitions should not be entertained for the mere asking and as a matter of routine, and the writ petitioner should invariably be directed to respond to the show-cause notice and take all stands highlighted in the writ petition. Whether the show-cause notice was founded on any legal premises, is a jurisdictional issue which can even be urged by the 1 AIR 1963 SC 853 2 (2004) 3 SCC 440 3 recipient of the notice and such issues also can be adjudicated by the authority issuing the very notice initially, before the aggrieved could approach the court."
(Emphasis Supplied)
7. In the instant case, in our opinion, mixed questions of facts and law are involved. The law can be made applicable when certain facts are not in dispute. The location of main Temple, the nexus/relation of bodies which have received the impugned notice with main Temple, nature of activity, taxability, etc., are essential mixed questions of facts and law. Thus, we are not inclined to entertain this petition. Instead, we deem it proper to direct the petitioners to file reply to the impugned show cause notice within fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If such reply is filed within the aforesaid time, we have no doubt that respondent No.5 shall consider and take a decision, in accordance with law.
8. The Writ Petition is disposed of without expressing any opinion on merits of the case and on the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. No costs.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_____________ Sujoy Paul, J _______________________________ Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, J 2nd July, 2024 Myk/Tsr