The State Of Andhra Pradesh, vs P. Ashok Gajapathi Raju,
2021 Latest Caselaw 2987 AP

                                                                                 56 to 58
                   PHIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI


           MAIN CASE: W.A. Nos. 391, 392 and 393 of 2021


                               PROCEEDINGS SHEET

Sl.     DATE                                    ORDER                             OFFICE
                                                                                   NOTE
No.


      11.08.2021                  (Taken up through video conferencing)

                              W.A. Nos. 391, 392 and 393 of 2021
                           Heard Mr. P. Sudhakara Reddy, learned Additional
                    Advocate General appearing for the appellants.
                           Also heard Mr. D.V. Sitharam Murthy, learned Senior
                    Counsel and Mr. N. Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for
                    respondent No.1/writ petitioner, Mr. K. Madhava Reddy,

learned standing counsel for respondent No.2, Mr. C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.3 in W.A.Nos.391, 392 and 393 of 2021 and Mr. P. Rajasekhar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 in W.A.Nos.391 and 393 of 2021.

Admit the appeals.

No formal steps are called for in respect of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in all the appeals and respondent No.4 in W.A.Nos.391 and 393 of 2021 as they are duly represented. However, extra copies be furnished by the learned counsel for the appellants.

Steps upon respondent No.5 in W.A.Nos.391 and 393 of 2021 by registered post with acknowledgement due.

List these cases in the month of December, 2021 along with W.A.Nos.398 of 2021 & batch.

I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.A.No.391 of 2021; I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.A.No.392 of 2021 & I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.A.No.393 of 2021 Heard the learned counsel for the parties on the interim prayer also.

Though W.A.Nos.398, 399 and 400 of 2021 were listed subsequent to these appeals, as agreed upon by the learned counsel for the parties, W.A.Nos.398, 399 and 400 of 2021 were taken up as first cases and in the said

W.A.NOS.391, 392 & 393/2021

Sl. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE No.

appeals, the following interim order was passed:

"Heard the learned counsel for the parties on the interim prayer also.

It is submitted by Mr. C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned senior counsel, that during the pendency of the writ petition, no interim order was passed by the learned single Judge, as a result thereof, the appellant has been functioning as President/Chairman of Maharajah Alak Narayan Society of Arts & Science (MANSAS) Trust, Fort Vizianagaram and Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Simhachalam (for short 'the temple') and in that view of the matter, the judgment under challenge may be suspended.

Mr. D.V. Sitharam Murthy, learned senior counsel, and Mr. V. Venugopala Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3/writ petitioner, submits that in the year 2016, the writ petitioner was appointed as Chairman by different orders in respect of MANSAS Trust and the temple, and by the subsequent orders, which were challenged in the writ petition, the Government had directed the appellant to take over charge from the writ petitioner and after passing of the judgment under challenge, the writ petitioner has taken over charge of the temple on 15.06.2021 and charge of the trust on 16.6.2021. It is further submitted that in the cause-title as well as in the affidavit filed in these applications, the appellant herself described to be the ex- chairman of trust as well as the temple and therefore, no interim order is called for.

In reply, it is submitted by Mr. C.V. Mohan Reddy that the procedure for assumption of charge has not been followed and oath taking process has not taken place.

This submission is controverted by Mr. D.V.

Sitharam Murthy. It is submitted by him that it

W.A.NOS.391, 392 & 393/2021

Sl. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE No.

was revival of the original order and therefore, there is no such necessity.

In the judgment under challenge, the learned single Judge observed that when the writ petitioner-P. Ashok Gajapathi Raju was very much recognized and declared as founder family member, in terms of Section 17 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 by the date of G.O.Ms.No.71 and 73, dated 03.03.2020, there was no possibility to consider the recognition of Kum. Sanchaitha Gajapathi Raju, Smt. Urmila Gajapathi Raju and Smt. R.V. Sunitha Prasad as founder family members.

Considering the matter in its entirety, we are not inclined to suspend the judgment under challenge.

Accordingly, these applications are dismissed."

In view of the aforesaid order, we are not inclined to suspend the judgment under challenge.

Accordingly, these applications are dismissed.

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ NINALA JAYASURYA, J Nn