Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
J.C. Balanarayana Reddy vs The State Of Ap on 3 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
***
W.P.No.11806 of 2021
Between:
# 1. J.C. Balanarayana Reddy, S/o. Late aChinna Ranga Reddy, R/o. Door
No.1-38, Juturu Village & post, Peddapappuru Mandal, Ananthapur
District - 515 411.
2. P. Venkataramanaiah, S/o. Late P.V. Narasimhaiah, Arachaka in Sri
Vajragiri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Juturu Village,
Peddapappuru Mandal, Ananthapur District - 515 411.
3. P. Venkatagiraiah, S/o. Late Lakshminarayananaiah, Arachaka in Sri
Vajragiri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Juturu Village,
Peddapappuru Mandal, Ananthapur District - 515 411.
4. P. Madhavaiah, S/o. Late Kondaiah, Archaka in Sri Vajragiri Lakshmi
Narasimha Swamy Temple, Juturu Village, Peddapappuru Mandal,
Ananthapur District - 515 411.
... Petitioner
AND
$ 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue
(Endowments) Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi,
Guntur District.
2. The Commissioner, Endowments Department, A.P., Gollapudi,
Vijayawada, Krishna District.
3. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Ananthapur.
4. The Executive Officer, Group Temples, Peddapappuru, Ananthapur.
... Respondents
Date of Judgment pronounced on : -08-2021
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes/No
May be allowed to see the judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked : Yes/No
to Law Reporters/Journals:
3. Whether the Lordship wishes to see the fair copy : Yes/No
Of the Judgment?
2 RRR,J
W.P.No.11806 of 2021
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
+ W.P.No.11806 of 2021
%Date: ____.08.2021
Between:
# 1. J.C. Balanarayana Reddy, S/o. Late aChinna Ranga Reddy, R/o. Door
No.1-38, Juturu Village & post, Peddapappuru Mandal, Ananthapur
District - 515 411.
2. P. Venkataramanaiah, S/o. Late P.V. Narasimhaiah, Arachaka in Sri
Vajragiri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Juturu Village,
Peddapappuru Mandal, Ananthapur District - 515 411.
3. P. Venkatagiraiah, S/o. Late Lakshminarayananaiah, Arachaka in Sri
Vajragiri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Juturu Village,
Peddapappuru Mandal, Ananthapur District - 515 411.
4. P. Madhavaiah, S/o. Late Kondaiah, Archaka in Sri Vajragiri Lakshmi
Narasimha Swamy Temple, Juturu Village, Peddapappuru Mandal,
Ananthapur District - 515 411.
... Petitioner
AND
$ 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue
(Endowments) Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi,
Guntur District.
2. The Commissioner, Endowments Department, A.P., Gollapudi,
Vijayawada, Krishna District.
3. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Ananthapur.
4. The Executive Officer, Group Temples, Peddapappuru, Ananthapur.
... Respondents
! Counsel for petitioners : Sri D.V. Sasidhar
^Counsel for Respondents 1 to 3 : G.P. for Endowments
^Counsel for Respondent No.4 : Sri G. Ramana Rao Standing Counsel
<GIST :
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred:
3 RRR,J
W.P.No.11806 of 2021
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.11806 of 2021
ORDER:
Sri Vajragiri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple,
Timmacheruvu Village, Peddapappuru Mandal, Ananthapur
District (herein referred as the Temple), is said to be an ancient
temple, which was constructed a few centuries back. The
petitioners claim that the said temple had become dilapidated
and the family members of the 1st petitioner had renovated and
developed the temple with their personal funds. The
development made is said to be the construction of a Kalyana
Mandapam, performance of cultural and religious activities at
the time of festivals, a cement road from the base of the hill to
the entrance of the temple on the hill, feeding the pilgrims who
visit the temple on the occasion of Vysaka Sudda Pournami etc.
It is further stated by the petitioners that the affairs of the
temple were being managed by the father of the 1st petitioner
since 1950 and thereafter by the 1st petitioner on the demise of
his father in 1966. It is further submitted that with a view to
offer better management of the temple, a society in the name
and style of Sri Vajragiri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy
Devasthanam Society was registered in 2016 and the said
society has been managing the affairs of the temple, with the 1st
petitioner as president.
2. The petitioners further state, in the writ petition,
that due to political differences, the Member of the Legislative
Assembly of Tadipatri constituency had pressurized the 3rd
4 RRR,J
W.P.No.11806 of 2021
respondent to appoint the 4th respondent as an Executive Officer
of this temple as a result of which the 3rd respondent by memo
No.A4/695/2021 Adm, dated 22.04.2021 had appointed the 4th
respondent as the Executive Officer of the temple. The 4th
respondent had taken custody of various articles of the deity on
14.05.2021 overawing the archakas who were present in the
temple on that day. The petitioners had now approached this
Court by way of the present writ petition for a declaration that
the appointment of the 4th respondent as an Executive Officer of
the temple by the 3rd respondent vide Memo No.A4/695/2021
Adm, dated 22.04.2021 is illegal, arbitrary and without
jurisdiction.
3. Sri D.V.Sasidhar, learned counsel for the
petitioners, apart from reiterating the contentions set out above,
also raised the question of power and authority of the 3rd
respondent to issue the impugned order. The learned counsel
would point out that the temple, which is registered under
Section 6(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu
Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (for short
'Endowments Act') has an annual income of less than
Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The authority who can
appoint an Executive Officer to a temple, which has an annual
income of less than Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only)
under Section 29 of the Endowments Act, is the Commissioner
of Endowments only. This appointment is also to be made only
after giving adequate reasons as, an Executive Officer, in the
normal course of events, should not be appointed for a temple
5 RRR,J
W.P.No.11806 of 2021
which has an annual income of less than Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees
two lakhs only). The learned counsel submits that the 3rd
respondent, who is an Assistant Commissioner of Endowments,
does not have any such authority to appoint an Executive
Officer to the temple.
4. The learned Government Pleader for Endowments
has submitted written instructions issued by the 3rd respondent.
In these instructions, the 3rd respondent has disputed and
denied the assertions made by the petitioners in the writ
petition and stated that the developments made in and around
the temple were not with the contributions of the petitioners or
the family of the 1st petitioner. It is stated in the instructions
that these developments were made with the contributions
obtained from the devotees of the temple. However, the
assertion that the temple has an income of less than
Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) is not disputed. The
written instructions state that even though the appointing
authority for such Executive Officer is the Commissioner of
Endowments, the said authority has been delegated to Zonal
Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner by way of
Memo No.D2/10625/2014-I, dated 16.04.2014. It is the stand
of the 3rd respondent that in view of the said delegation under
Section 8(4) of the Endowments Act, the 3rd respondent is
competent to appoint an Executive Officer for the temple.
5. The learned Government Pleader, while reiterating
the statements made in the written instructions, has also
6 RRR,J
W.P.No.11806 of 2021
submitted that Section 8(4) of the Endowments Act permits the
Commissioner of Endowments to delegate his powers or
functions to an Assistant Commissioner of Endowments. He
submits that since such a power has already been delegated to
the Assistant Commissioner, the petitioners cannot claim any
lack of jurisdiction or power on the part of the 3rd respondent.
6. The 4th respondent has filed a counter. Sri
G.Ramana Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent
reiterates the submissions made by the learned Government
Pleader for Endowments and has also raised various
contentions in relation to the merits of the case.
CONSIDERATION OF THE COURT:-
7. A perusal of the material placed before this Court,
along with the written instructions reveal the following facts.
By a letter dated 08.09.2020, the sitting Member of
the Legislative Assembly of Tadipatri Constituency is said to
have addressed a letter to the Hon'ble Minister for Endowments
with a request for appointment of an Executive Officer to the
temple. On the basis of this request, the Commissioner
Endowments is said to have issued Memo
No.Rc.No.E2/15021/70/2021, dated 19.03.2021 to the 3rd
respondent to examine the request of appointment of an
Executive Officer and submit a detailed report duly suggesting a
nearby Executive Officer, so as to take further action in the
matter. Upon receipt of this memo, the 3rd respondent had
7 RRR,J
W.P.No.11806 of 2021
issued a Memo bearing Rc.No.A4/695/2021 Adm, dated
25.03.2021, to the Inspector of Endowments Department to
submit a detailed report suggesting the name of an Executive
Officer so as to submit a detailed report to the Commissioner,
Endowments Department, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh for
taking further action. Thereafter, the Inspector of Endowments,
addressed a letter dated 17.04.2021 to the 3rd respondent giving
the details of the properties owned by the temple and making a
recommendation that it is necessary to appoint an Executive
Officer to protect these lands from encroachers on the ground
that pattadar pass books have been issued to private parties in
relation to some of these lands. The Inspector also
recommended that the 4th respondent be appointed as an
Executive Officer of the temple.
8. These communications reveal that the 3rd
respondent was instructed by the Commissioner of Endowments
to submit a report for considering the request made earlier for
appointment of an Executive Officer. However, the 3rd
respondent, instead of forwarding a report to the Commissioner
of Endowments, had issued the impugned Memo
No.A4/695/2021 Adm, dated 22.04.2021 appointing the 4th
respondent as an Executive Officer of the temple and as such
the said appointment is not in accordance with the directions of
the Commissioner Endowments.
9. The appointment made by the 3rd respondent is
assailed on two grounds - firstly, on the ground of lack of
8 RRR,J
W.P.No.11806 of 2021
authority to make such an appointment, and secondly, on the
merits of the case.
10. The appointment of an Executive Officer to a temple
is to be made under Section 29 of the Endowments Act. This
provision stipulates that an Executive Officer shall be appointed
to every temple. However, the appointment of an Executive
Officer to a temple which has annual income of less than
Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) can be done only by the
Commissioner of Endowments for the reasons set out in Section
29 of the Endowment Act, which reads as follows:
"29. Appointment and duties of Executive Officer. -
(1) There shall be an Executive Officer for every Charitable or
Religious Institution or Endowment to be appointed by the
Government in the case of institutions and Endowments
having income of rupees one crore and above and by the
Commissioner in the case of other Institutions and
Endowments included in the lists published under clauses (a)
and (b) of Section 6. In respect of charitable or religious
institutions or endowment having income of less than rupees
two lakhs per annum, and included in the list published
under clause (c) of Section 6, it shall not be necessary to
appoint an executive officer. The cadre of Executive Officers to
be appointed under this section for the respective institutions
on the basis of the income of the Institution or Endowment
shall be as may be prescribed:
Provided that, where there is no Executive Officer in
respect of any Charitable or Religious Institution or
Endowment, the trustee or the Chairman of the Board of
Trustees or any employee of any Institution or Endowment
where the income exceeds Rs. 2 lakhs, but is less than Rs. 25
lakhs per annum, duly authorised by the Commissioner in
this behalf shall exercise the powers and perform the
functions and discharge the duties of an Executive Officer:
9 RRR,J
W.P.No.11806 of 2021
Provided further that it shall be competent for the
Commissioner to appoint an Executive Officer to any
institution having income of less than Rs. 2 lakhs per annum
if there are substantial immovable properties to the institution
or if he is satisfied that such appointment is necessary in the
interest of better administration of the institution or for any
other reason to be recorded in writing:
Provided also that, it shall be competent for the
Commissioner to constitute such number of Charitable and
Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments as may be
necessary, into a single group for the purpose of appointing an
Executive Officer or any other employee to such group.
(2) The number of Executive Officers in each grade shall
be as may be prescribed by the Government from time to time
and the Commissioner shall be the appointing authority for
the Executive Officer of Grades, I, II and III:
Provided that forty percentum of vacancies in third
grade Executive Officers posts and twenty percentum of the
vacancies in other two grades of Executive Officers shall be
filled by the employees belonging to the institutions or
Endowments of prescribed grade:
Provided further that it shall be competent for the
Government to appoint a Regional Joint Commissioner as an
Executive Officer to any institution and it shall be competent
for the Commissioner to appoint a Deputy Commissioner or an
Assistant Commissioner as an Executive Officer to any
institution basing on the annual income of such institution.
(3) The Executive Officer appointed and exercising the
powers and discharging the duties shall be a person professing
Hindu Religion and shall cease to exercise those powers and
discharge those duties when he ceases to profess that religion.
(a) The Executive Officer appointed under this section
shall be responsible for carrying out all lawful directions
issued by such trustee from time to time;
(b) The Executive Officer shall, subject to such
restrictions as may be imposed by the Government;
10 RRR,J
W.P.No.11806 of 2021
(i) be responsible for the proper maintenance and
custody of all the records, accounts and other
documents and of all the jewels, valuables, money,
funds and other properties of the Institution or
Endowment;
(ii) arrange for the proper collection of income and for
incurring of expenditure;
(iii) sue or be sued in the name of the institution or
Endowment in all legal proceedings;
Provided that any legal proceedings pending
immediately before the commencement of this Act
by or against an institution or Endowment in which
any person other than an Executive Officer is suing
or being sued shall not be affected;
(iv) deposit of money received by the institution or
Endowment in such Bank or treasury as may be
prescribed and be entitled to sign all orders or
cheques against such moneys;
Provided that the Executive Officer shall not encash
the fixed deposit certificates pertaining to any
scheme or specific endowment under any
circumstances;
(v) have power in cases of emergency to direct the
execution of any work or the doing of any act which
is provided for in the budget for the year or the
immediate execution or the doing of which is in his
opinion necessary for the preservation of the
properties of the institution or endowment or for the
service or safety of pilgrims resorting thereto and to
direct that the expenses of executing such work or
the doing of such work or the doing of such act
shall be paid from the funds of the institution or
endowment:
Provided that the Executive Officer shall report
forthwith to the Trustee, any action taken by him under this
sub-clause and the reasons therefore and obtain approval;
11 RRR,J
W.P.No.11806 of 2021
(c) the Executive Officer shall, with the prior approval of
the trustee institute any legal proceedings in the name of the
institution or endowment or defend any such legal proceeding;
(d) The Executive Officer appointed under this section
shall be the employee of the Government and the conditions of
his service shall be such as may be determined by the
Government. The salary, allowances, pension and other
remuneration of the Executive Officer shall be paid out of the
consolidated fund of the State and later recovered from the
Endowment Administrative Fund.
(e) It shall be the duty of the Executive Officer of every
Religious or Charitable Institution to foster faith, devotion and
ethical conduct in the society, by facilitating formation of a
Bhaktha Samajam attached to each Institution, on voluntary
basis, consisting of the devotees thereof in order to periodically
organize Bhajans, Religious discourses devotional and other
Religious programmes such as Nagara Sankeertans etc.,
appropriate to the Custom, Usage, Tradition and
Sampradayams of the Institution concerned."
11. This would mean that neither the Assistant
Commissioner nor the Deputy Commissioner can appoint an
Executive Officer for a temple having an annual income of less
than Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). However, the
respondents rely upon Section 8(4) & (5) of Endowments Act and
Memo No.D2/10625/2014-I, dated 16.04.2014 to contend that
the power of the Commissioner under Section 29 of the Act can
be delegated, under Section 8(4)&(5) of the Endowments Act, to
Deputy Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners and such
power has been delegated under the above memo.
12. Section 8 (4) of the Endowments Act reads as
follows.
12 RRR,J
W.P.No.11806 of 2021
"8. Powers and functions of Commissioner and
Additional Commissioner. -
(1) xxxx
(2) xxxx
(3) xxxx
(4) xxxxx
(5) The Commissioner may delegate to an Assistant
Commissioner any of the powers conferred on or functions
entrusted to the Commissioner by or under this Act except the
powers and functions of the Commissioner under sub Section
(1), Sections 6, 15, 49, 51, 66, 90, 92 and 132 in respect of
any institution or endowment in the sub-division in charge of
the Assistant Commissioner subject to such restrictions and
control as the Government may, by general or special order,
lay down and subject also to such limitations and conditions if
any, as may be specified in the order of delegation."
13. The Memo No.D2/10625/2014-I, dated 16.04.2014
reads as follows:
"It is to inform that under Section 29 of Endowments
Act 30/87, the Commissioner of Endowments is the only
competent authority to appoint an Executive Officer/Manager
to a institution.
But, it has been observed that Zonal Deputy
Commissioners and District Assistant Commissioners are
appointing Executive Officers and Managers to the temples
without any jurisdiction. Aggrieved parties are challenging
their appointment orders in Courts and getting it suspended on
the ground of jurisdiction.
Hence, all the Zonal Deputy Commissioners and District
Assistant Commissioners are requested not to appoint any
Executive Officer/ Manager to a temple without prior approval
of Commissioner of Endowments. In case of any urgency, they
may appoint an Executive Officer/Manager to a temple duly
mentioning in the order that this order is subject to ratification
of Commissioner of Endowments and they shall take
ratification of their appointment order immediately".
13 RRR,J
W.P.No.11806 of 2021
14. A Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of Andhra
Pradesh had an occasion to consider these provisions of law in
similar circumstances in the case of Yadalla Pitchaiah Chetty
vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others (2001 (6) ALD
315 (DB)) and held as under:
"8. In the aforementioned backdrop, the contention of
the learned Government Pleader, as would appear from the
impugned order, that the same has been passed at the
instance of the Commissioner, must be examined. The
submission of the learned Government Pleader cannot be
accepted both on facts as also in law. Before us, the records
have been produced, from a perusal whereof it appears that
the Commissioner by an order dated 10-5-1990 appointed one
P.V. Subba Reddy as Executive Officer of Sri Lakshmi
Narasimha Swamy Temple, Chinna Dasaripalle. The
Commissioner, therefore, did not appoint any Executive Officer
in respect of the Choultry or temple in question, but despite
the same, the Deputy Commissioner appointed P.V. Subba
Reddy as Executive Officer in relation to fifteen temples. The
impugned order, therefore, suffers such exercise of power is
hatched with the conditions referred to therein. Not only if a
general or special power is exercised, the same has to be done
by issuing an appropriate order which would show application
of mind on the part of the delegating authority, but such order
must be notified in the Official Gazette. Furthermore, prior to
exercising such power, the matter is required to be placed
before the State Government inasmuch as the State
Government, in terms of Sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the
Act, is entitled to put such restrictions and control as may be
laid down. Having regard to the fact that neither any general
or special power nor no power in accordance with law has
14 RRR,J
W.P.No.11806 of 2021
been delegated in favour of the Deputy Commissioner in terms
of Sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act, the impugned order
could not have been sustained even on the ground that the
Deputy Commissioner has acted under the directions of the
Commissioner."
15. The above passage stipulates the following steps
before delegation of power can be made either under
Section 8(4) or under Section 8(5) of the Endowments Act:
1) The requirement of delegation of power under
Section 8(4) & (5) of the Endowment Act should be
placed before the State Government by the
Commissioner of Endowments.
2) The Government, after considering the request of
the Commissioner of Endowments, would either
reject the request or approve the request with such
restrictions and controls as the Government may
decide.
3) If such permission is granted by the State
Government, the said delegation of power done by
the Commissioner has to be notified in the official
gazette.
16. In the present case, no such procedure appears to
have been followed as the delegation of power by the
Commissioner of Endowments is said to have been done by a
Memo issued on the instructions of the Additional
Commissioner of Endowments. A reading of the said memo
15 RRR,J
W.P.No.11806 of 2021
does not show that the proposed delegation of power has been
placed for the consideration of the Government or that it was
published in the Gazette. The 3rd respondent, who is an
Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, does not have power or
authority to appoint an Executive Officer to the temple.
17. In view of the finding on the lack of power or
authority a further decision on the merits of the case would be
unnecessary.
18. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed by setting
aside the impugned Memo No.A4/695/2021 Adm, dated
22.04.2021 issued by the 3rd respondent. There shall be no
order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,
shall stand closed.
____________________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
____.08.2021
SDP
16 RRR,J
W.P.No.11806 of 2021
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.11806 of 2021
____-08-2021
SDP
