Telangana High Court
Pendyala Srinivas vs State Of Telangana, on 13 June, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL
WRIT PETITION No.15602 of 2025
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly, a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the respondent No.3 herein, i.e., the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, R.R District, in conducing the Oath of Office and Secrecy to the petitioner herein who are appointed as Trustees of the Trust Board of Sri Trinethra Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Sahebnagar Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Act, and Rules of the Endowments Act, 1987 and pass such other order or orders.
2. Heard Sri D.Sudarshan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms.Sailaja, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Ch.Satish Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for 2 Endowments appearing for respondent No.4. Perused the materials available on record.
3. The brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition are that the petitioners are appointed as trustees to the Sri Trinethra Anjaneya Swamy Temple-respondent No.4 vide proceedings dated 25.04.2025 and as per the said proceedings, the petitioners are requested to take oath of office and secrecy as required under Sub-Section (2) of the Section 19 of the Act 30/87 before they enter upon office. If any trustee fails to take, within thirty days from the date on which he was appointed, the Oath of office and secrecy laid down in Sub-Section (2) he/she shall cease to hold office. That being the condition, the petitioners have been appointed as trustees are not been allowed to take oath by respondent No.3. Aggrieved thereby the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners are deprived of their 3 legitimate rights. Though the petitioners have been appointed as trustees, no action has been taken by respondent No.3 to administer the Oath of office and secrecy to the appointed Trustees, though he is also authorized to conduct a special meeting of the trustees to conduct the election of the Chairman of the Trust Board as per the rules framed under Section 20 of the Act, 1987, still said meeting was also not conducted and no steps have been taken to cause notice for taking oath to enable the petitioners to take oath of office and secrecy, thereby the right of the petitioners to function as trustees to the said Temple.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on the Judgment passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.1020 and 1337 of 2007 in case of Rapolu Sudhakar and another v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (Endowments II/I) Department and others 1 and submitted that the petitioners are 1 2007 (2) ALT 587 4 willfully appointed as trustees and not allowed to take Oath at the behest of respondent No.3. The petitioners are entitled to take Oath of office and function as trustees by virtue of appointment by the respondent No.2 vide proceedings in Rc.No.F4/3837/2025, dated 25.04.2025. Therefore, he seeks to allow this writ petition.
6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowment appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 would submit that as per the provisions under Section 19(2) and (3) of the Endowments Act, 1987, the petitioners were directed to take Oath within a period of thirty days from the date of appointment, but they have failed to take Oath, therefore, they have lost their right to appoint as trustees. It is further submitted that the petitioner have been failed on their part and seeking any relief in this writ petition is cannot be permitted as they have lost their right to appoint as trustees. Therefore, seeks permission of this Court that the 5 official respondents of the Temple to take necessary action in accordance with law to appoint trustees afresh.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned Standing Counsel for Endowments appearing for respondent No.4, this Court on an earlier occasion examined the similar circumstances in the matter of Rapolu Sudhakar and another (Cited supra) and the relevant observations as under:
iv) Is there any embargo on oath taking:
After filing the writ petition, the petitioner in W.P.No.1020 of 2007 filed additional affidavits. In one such affidavit, a contention is raised that the respondents 4 to 12 having failed to take oath of office and secrecy within thirty days from the date of the G.O. cease to hold office. The submission is misconceived. A perusal of the impugned G.O. would show that the first respondent while appointing respondents 4 to 12 directed the second respondent to take steps to administer oath of office and secrecy to the persons appointed and also for election of the Chairman of the Trust Board, as per the provisions of 6 Section 20 of the Act. The impugned G.O. was issued on 08.1.2007. Even before the Commissioner could initiate action as ordered by the Government, the writ petition was filed on 17.1.2007 and, therefore, Section 19(3) of the Act has no application. Unless and until the second respondent convenes meeting by issuing notice to all the appointed trustees, the time of thirty days does not start running. Therefore, there cannot be any impediment for respondents 4 to 12 to take oath of office and secrecy under Section 19(2) of the Act, as and when the second respondent take steps to administer oath of office and secrecy. Be it also noted that as per Section 19(2) of the Act, it is only the Commissioner, who has to administer oath of office and secretary to respondents 4 to 12 and this process is yet to commence.
8. The matter in this writ petition is similar to the case in W.P.Nos.1020 and 1337 of 2007 and as per the said proceedings, the petitioners are requested to take oath of office and secrecy as required under Sub-Section (2) of the Section 19 of the Act 30/87 before they enter upon office, but respondent No.3 authority has not taken any steps in accordance with law, resultantly, did not allow them to take oath of the office and secrecy. As per Section 7 19(2) of the Act, it is only the Commissioner- respondent No.3, who has to administer oath of office and secretary of petitioners. Unless and until the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments - respondent No.3 convenes meeting by issuing notice to all the appointed trustees, the time of thirty days does not start running. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to direct respondent No.3 to administer the oath of Office and secrecy in terms of Section 19(2) of the Act, pursuant to the proceedings in Rc.No.F4/3837/2025 dated 25.04.2025, issued by the respondent No.2, to appoint the Petitioners as non-hereditary trustees of Sri Trinethra Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Shhebnagar Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Thus, the petitioners are directed to appear before the Assistant Commissioner-respondent No.3 on 25.06.2025 and take oath of office and secrecy in accordance with law.
8
9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL Date: 13.06.2025.
pld