Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Penumudi Venkata Subba Rao, vs The Government Of A.P. on 3 February, 2021
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.12724 of 2020
ORDER:
The petitioners are hereditary Archakas of Sri
Rameswara Swamy Temple, Ganganamma Pet, Tenali Town,
Guntur District. The hereditary Archakatvam is being carried on
in the temple on the basis of a settlement deed dated 04.05.1951.
It is the case of the petitioners that even though only members of
their family would be entitled to carry on the hereditary
Archakatvam, the 7th respondent herein on the basis of a certain
Will laid claim to the right to perform Archakatvam service in the
temple, even though the 7th respondent is unrelated to the family
of the petitioners.
2. The petitioners are now aggrieved by the letter dated
15.07.2020 issued by the 6th respondent directing the petitioners
to handover the Archakatvam service to the 7th respondent in
terms of the said letter and approached this Court on the ground
that the 7th respondent has no right to make any such claim and
set out various proceedings initiated earlier in this regard.
3. A perusal of the affidavit as well as the documents
filed by the petitioners and the documents filed by the 7th
respondent would reveal the following facts:
4. The petitioners and 7th respondent had initially
approached this Court by way of W.P.Nos.23719 and 21894 of
2013 and W.P.Nos.29704 and 23243 of 2015, raising their rival
claims in relation to the Archakatvam of the temple. These writ
petitions were disposed of by a Common Judgment dated
2 RRR,J
W.P.No.12724 of 2020
22.03.2017, wherein this Hon'ble Court had directed the respective
parties to approach the Endowment Tribunal for a decision of their
respective rights. Accordingly, the 7th respondent approached the
Endowment Tribunal by way of O.A.No.543 of 2017 in which
I.A.No.1045 of 2017 was filed for interim direction. This I.A. was
disposed of by the Endowment Tribunal by an order dated
03.01.2018 directing that, pending disposal of the O.A., the 7th
respondent should be given the Archakatvam for the period from
SRAVANA MASAM to MAGHA MASAM except PUSHYA MASAM
every year for a period of six (6) months. Aggrieved by the said
order, the petitioners had approached this Court by way of
W.P.No.1244 of 2018, which was disposed of on 12.03.2018.
Aggrieved by the same, Writ Appeal No.643 of 2018 was filed by
the petitioners and Writ Appeal No.619 of 2018 was filed by the 7th
respondent. These Writ Appeals were disposed of on 23.04.2018
declaring that the interim order dated 03.01.2018 shall continue to
remain in force and with a direction to the Endowment Tribunal to
dispose of the O.A. within six (6) months from the date of receipt of
the copy of the order.
5. It appears that the O.A. continues to remains pending
despite the directions of the Division Bench. While the O.A. was
pending, the 7th respondent again sought the Archakatvam rights
in the year 2019 which resulted in the petitioners again
approaching this Court by way of W.P.No.14304 of 2019 assailing
the proceedings of the Executive Officer in directing them to
handover the Archakatvam rights to the 7th respondent. This writ
petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on
22.11.2019, holding that the interim order passed on 03.01.2018
3 RRR,J
W.P.No.12724 of 2020
by the Tribunal would continue to remain in force and with a
direction to the Endowment Tribunal to dispose of O.A.No.514 of
2017, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of
copy of the order. This order of the High Court has also remained
on paper and the O.A. is still pending before the Tribunal.
6. The petitioners have again approached this Court,
when they were directed to handover Archakatvam service to the
7th respondent for the year 2020 by the proceedings of the
Executive Officer dated 15.07.2020.
7. Sri K.Sairam Murthy, learned counsel for the
petitioners would submit that apart from all the aforesaid issues,
the order of the Endowment Tribunal dated 03.01.2018 has to be
set aside on the ground that it is violation of Rule 22 (2) of the
Endowment Tribunal Rules. The said Rules reads as follows:
"(2) (a) Both the Chairman and the member should
hear the arguments in the application and deliver
the order signed by both of them or independently.
(b) In case of disagreement, the decision of
Chairman will prevail. In all such cases, an appeal
lies to the High Court within 30 days from the date
of the order."
8. Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for
the Temple submits that this contention is baseless as the
Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.419, dated 09.01.2015
inserting sub-rule 3 to Rule 23 of the Endowment Tribunal Rules,
under this sub-rule it is stipulated that where a single member in
the Tribunal can carry on the functions of the Chairman and sign
orders on an individual basis.
4 RRR,J
W.P.No.12724 of 2020
9. In the light of the above submissions of Sri K.Madhava
Reddy, the submission of Sri K.Sairam Murthy has to be
discarded.
10. It is also necessary mention that the order dated
03.01.2018 has already been the subject matter of a challenge
before this Court in W.P.No.1244 of 2018. It appears that this
contention was not raised before the learned Single Judge or before
the Division Bench in the subsequent Writ Appeals. In that light of
the matter, the contention cannot be raised at this stage, as it is
hit by the principle of constructive res judicata.
11. In the light of the earlier litigation, it is clear that the
present writ petition is not maintainable either on the facts or on
law and the earlier Judgments of this Court continue to be
binding, and as such, the petitioners cannot obstruct, the 7th
respondent from conducting Archakatvam in the period set out in
the order dated 03.01.2018 of the Endowment Tribunal. Hence,
the writ petition is dismissed.
12. However, it must be noted that the Endowment
Tribunal has not complied with the directions of this Court in the
order dated 23.04.2018 and the directions of the learned Single
Judge dated 22.11.2019 in W.P.No.14304 of 2019. It is a matter of
concern that the Endowment Tribunal which is functioning under
the supervision of this Court has chosen not to comply these
directions nor sought extension of time for compliance of the
directions of this Court.
5 RRR,J
W.P.No.12724 of 2020
13. It is further directed that the Tribunal shall take up
O.A.No.541 of 2017 and dispose of the same within a period of
three (3) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. This
order shall be sent to the Endowment Tribunal by Special
Messenger.
14. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall
be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,
shall stand closed.
____________________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
03.02.2021
sdp
