Pujari Obulaiah vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2863 AP

         HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

     WRIT PETITON Nos.12157 and 12282 of 2021

COMMON ORDER:

        As both these writ petitions raise the same issue, they

are being disposed of by this common order.


        2.     Both the writ petitions have been filed challenging

the auction of the leasehold rights of the lands belonging to the

4th respondent-temple. Various grounds have been raised by

the petitioners and rebutted by Sri G.Ramana Rao, learned

Standing Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent-temple.

However, a detailed discussion on the grounds of challenge and

their rebuttal need not detain this Court as the writ petitions

can be disposed of on a short ground.


        3.     The auctions are said to have been conducted by

an Executive Officer, appointed by the Deputy Commissioner of

Endowments, on the basis of Memo No.D2/10625/2014-1,

dated 16.06.2014. The effect of this memo has been considered

by     this    Court   in   its   Judgment    dated   03.08.2021   in

W.P.No.11806 of 2021 wherein it was held that the said memo

does     not    empower     either   the   Deputy   Commissioner   of

Endowments or Assistant Commissioner of Endowments to

appoint Executive Officer of any temple, which has an income

of less than Rs.2 lakhs.


        4.     In paragraph No.18 of the counter in W.P.No.12157

of 2021 and paragraph No.17 of the counter affidavit in

W.P.No.12282 of 2021, the 4th respondent has specifically
                                     2




stated that the Executive Officer has been appointed, under

this   Memo,       by   the   Deputy       Commissioner.     In   the

circumstances, the appointment of Executive Officer itself has

to be set-aside and consequently the auctions conducted by

the Executive Officers would also have to be set aside.


       4.      Accordingly,   the   writ   petitions   are   allowed.

However, this judgment shall not be treated as any finding on

any of the facts, which are in dispute, and it shall also be open

to the respondents to take such steps as they may deem fit

either for appointment of the Executive Officer of the temple or

for auction of the leasehold rights. It would be open to the

petitioners to raise such objections as they deem fit in the

event of such auction being taken up. There shall be no order

as to costs.


       As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,

shall stand closed.


                                        ____________________________
                                        R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

04th August, 2021 RJS

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

WRIT PETITON Nos.12282 and 12157 of 2021

04th August, 2021

RJS