Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kale Srinivasulu, vs M.Venkateswarlu, on 20 March, 2021
Bench: Arup Kumar Goswami, C.Praveen Kumar
IN THEm HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL No.113 of 2021
(Taken up through video conferencing)
Kale Srinivasulu, S/o Subba Rao,
Aged 49 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Valluru Village, Tangatur Mandal,
Prakasam District.
.. Appellant.
Versus
M. Venkateswarlu, S/o Ankaiah,
Aged 53 years, Occ: Cultivation,
R/o 8-31-8, Karumanchi village,
Tangutur Mandal, Prakasam District
and others.
..Respondents.
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. P. Nagendra Reddy
Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. Srinivasulu Kurra
Counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 : GP for Endowments
Counsel for respondent No.5 : Mr. G. Ramana Rao
ORAL JUDGMENT
Dt: 20.03.2021
(per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)
Heard Mr. P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant. Also
heard Mr. Srinivasulu Kurra, learned counsel for respondent No.1, learned
Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondents No.2 to 4 and
Mr. G. Ramana Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.5.
HCJ & CPK, J
WA No.113 of 2021
2. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 12.02.2021 passed by
learned single Judge in W.P.No.12 of 2021 setting aside G.O.Rt.No.944 Revenue
(Endowments. II) Department, dated 11.12.2020 issued by the 1st respondent in
the writ petition, constituting the Board of Trustees for the 4th respondent
temple in the writ petition, leaving it open to the respondent authorities to
reconstitute the Board, in accordance with law.
3. The present appeal is preferred by respondent No.7 in the writ petition.
Respondent Nos.6 to 13 in the writ petition were the members of the Trust
Board constituted by G.O.Rt.No.994, dated 11.12.2020. In the order under
challenge, it was recorded that the private respondents were represented by
Mr. P. Nagendra Reddy. However, Mr. Nagendra Reddy submits that he had
appeared only for respondent No.7, who was the Chairman of the Board of
Trustees. Though a dispute is sought to be raised, it is relevant to note that
the Chairman of the Board of Trustees had been heard and therefore, it is not
necessary for us to go into that arena as to whether notice was issued to all the
respondents, as in our considered opinion, the Chairman had put forward the
case on behalf of the Board, thereby trying to protect the interest of all the
members.
4. The learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition on the ground that
Rule 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and
Endowments Appointment of Trustees Rules, 1987 (for short, 'the Rules') , was
not followed as no notice inviting applications for the post of trustees in the
news paper was issued.
5. At the outset, it is relevant to extract Rule 4 of the Rules, which reads as
under:
HCJ & CPK, J
WA No.113 of 2021
"Rule-4: (1) The authority competent to appoint trustees
shall, forth with on a report received under Rule 3, cause
publication of the notice in Form-I.
(2) The notice referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be affixed;
(i) on the notice board of the office or on the front door of
the institution or endowment or in any conspicuous place where
there is no institution;
(ii) on the notice board of the Sarpanch, Mandal Revenue Officer,
Municipal Office, as the case may be; and
(iii) on the notice board of the office of the Commissioner, Regional
Joint Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, Assistant
Commissioner, and Inspector as the case may be;
Provided that the competent authority may also order or
cause publication of the notice in any daily news paper in the
language of the locality at the cost of the Institution or
endowment, if it is situated in big cities and is capable of meeting
the cost of publication."
6. It is the contention of Mr. P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellant, that the proviso to Rule 4 comes into play only in the event of
fulfilment of two conditions, namely, if the temple is located in big city and the
temple is capable of meeting the cost of publication and, that too, only when the
competent authority gives an order for publication of the notice in any daily
newspaper in the language of the locality.
7. While admitting that the temple in question was capable of meeting the
cost of publication, it is submitted that the temple is not located in a big city. It
is also submitted that in any event, a news item was published indicating that
the temple in question was going to appoint Board of Trustees and applications
HCJ & CPK, J
WA No.113 of 2021
were invited fixing the last date as 19th October, 2019 and, therefore, there is
substantial compliance of the proviso.
8. It is seen that the competent authority had issued an order dated
01.10.2019 requiring the Executive Officers of various temples, amongst others,
of the 4th respondent temple, to cause publication of the notice in any
newspaper in the language of the locality for appointment of trustees and
submit affixture reports to it without fail. When the competent authority had
issued such an order, the same has to be followed by the subordinate officers.
9. In our considered opinion, a news item published in a newspaper does
not fulfil the requirements of a notice asking the general public to submit their
candidature for the posts of Trust Board members.
10. We do not find any good ground to take a view other than the one taken
by the learned single Judge.
11. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal with no costs. Pending miscellaneous
applications, if any, shall stand closed.
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
Nn
HCJ & CPK, J
WA No.113 of 2021
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL No.113 of 2021
(per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)
Dt: 20.03.2021
Nn
