Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sri Venkateswara Swamy Devalaya ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 5 October, 2021
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
W.P.No.21986 of 2020
ORDER:
The 1st petitioner is a society set up for managing the
activities of Sri Venkateswara Swamy Devalayam in
Venkateswarapuram, Nellore Town. The 2nd petitioner is said to
be the president of 1st petitioner and a devotee of the deity in the
above temple.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that this temple had
been constructed with the contributions of the people in the
local area and that the 1st petitioner had further developed the
temple and is ensuring that all the religious ceremonies,
including daily poojas, are performed properly in the temple. It
is stated that there are four hundis set up in the temple for
devotees to contribute for the upkeep and maintenance of the
temple and that these contributions are placed in a bank
account which has been opened by the 1st petitioner in the 6th
respondent-bank.
3. The petitioners received a notice from the 3rd
respondent-Assistant Commissioner dated 23.10.2020,
informing the 2nd petitioner that the 5th respondent- Executive
Officer of Sri Talpagiri Ranganadha Swamy Temple, has been
directed to take charge on the properties and records of the
Temple as the 5th respondent had been appointed as the
Executive Officer of the Temple by the 2nd respondent by
proceedings dated 19.10.2020.
2 RRR,J
W.P.No.21986 of 2020
4. Aggrieved by this direction, the petitioners have
approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. It is
the case of the petitioners that this temple is not a notified
temple under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu
Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 [for the short
"the 1987 Act"] and the respondents would have no jurisdiction
to issue the impugned proceedings, dated 23.10.2020, and in
any event, the impugned proceedings had been passed without
any prior notice to the petitioners and has to be set aside on the
ground of violation of principles of natural justice.
5. After receiving notice, the respondents have initially
filed written instructions and subsequently counter affidavits.
The stand of the respondents is that this temple has been
recognised as a public temple falling within the ambit of the
1987 Act, by way of appropriate proceedings of the Assistant
Commissioner Endowments and had been published as a
temple falling under Section 6 (c) (ii) of the 1987 Act. It is stated
that in view of the publication carried out in the year 1995 itself,
the temple is a registered temple to which the provisions of
Section 29 of 1987 Act, would apply.
6. It is further submitted by the respondents that the
temple is a public temple, which is visited by all sections of the
society, and funds are collected by way of donations from the
general public. It is the further contention of the respondents
that as there were some complaints against the functioning of
3 RRR,J
W.P.No.21986 of 2020
the petitioners, as managers of the temple, a report was
forwarded to the 2nd respondent-Commissioner, who had there
upon appointed the 5th respondent as the Executive Officer of
the temple vide proceedings in Memo No.E2/150121/225/2020,
dated 19.10.2020 and the 3rd respondent had only issued a
consequential order dated 23.10.2020, which is now impugned
in the writ petition. The respondents justify the order of the 2nd
respondent-Commissioner dated 19.10.2020 on the additional
ground that the petitioners have never submitted their audited
accounts or obtained necessary approved permissions, as
required under the provisions of the 1987 Act, in relation to
published temples under Section 6 (c) of the 1987 Act, and the
Commissioner had appointed the Executive officer to set right
the administration of the temple and to ensure compliance of
the requirements of the 1987 Act.
7. After receipt of these counter affidavits, the
petitioners had amended the prayer in the writ petition to
challenge the proceedings of the 2nd respondent-Commissioner
in RC.No.J3/4584/93, dated 22.11.1995, directing publication
of the temple under Section of 6(c) (ii) of the 1987 Act, in the
official Gazette, the Memo No.E2/150121/225/2020, dated
19.10.2020 issued by the 2nd respondent - Commissioner of
Endowments appointing the 5th respondent as the Executive
Officer of the temple. The petitioners also took the plea that the
initial publication of the temple in the year 1995 was done
without any notice being given to the petitioners and in fact the
4 RRR,J
W.P.No.21986 of 2020
department had never pointed out this fact to the petitioners at
any point of time and the petitioners have been running the
affairs of the temple, as a temple, which does not fall within the
purview of the 1987 Act.
8. After amendment of the prayer and the filing of the
additional affidavits raising the new ground that notice had not
been issued to the petitioners prior to publication, the
respondents had filed additional counter affidavits. In these
additional counter affidavits the respondents contend that no
notice need be issued to the person in management under the
Rules, before publishing the institution under Section 6 (c) of
the 1987 Act.
9. The petitioners had relied upon the judgment of the
erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Sri V.V.V.R.K.
Yachendra Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh1 in this case a temple
had been notified under Section 6 (c) (ii) of the Andhra Pradesh
Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments
Act, 1966,( hereinafter referred to as the 1966 Act) on
06.04.1976, as a public temple. The person in management of
the temple, on the ground that he came to know on the said
notification only in September, 1983 had approached the Court
for setting aside the said notification on the ground that the
notice had not been given to the person in management. The
Learned Government Pleader had taken the stand that the
1987 (1) ALT 256
5 RRR,J
W.P.No.21986 of 2020
publication of the notification in the Gazette is itself a notice
and in any event, there is no provision for notice being given to
the person in management before registering the temple under
the 1966 Act. The learned single Judge, after considering this
contention, had held that even though there is no express
provision in the section obliging the Commissioner to issue
notice to the person in management a temple before enlisting it
as a public temple, the general principles of natural justice are
implicit in the 1966 Act and need to be complied with. On the
said ratio, the learned Judge was pleased to set aside the order
of enlisting of the temple under Section 6(c) of the 1966 Act, and
left it open to the respondents to issue a fresh notice and
consider the objections that may be filed by the person in
management before taking a further decision in the matter.
10. In view of the aforesaid judgement which is binding
on this Court, it must be held that the original notification of the
temple in 1995 requires to be set aside on the ground of lack of
notice to the persons in management of the temple before the
temple was published under Section 6(c) (ii) of the 1987 Act.
11. Consequently, the order of the 2nd respondent dated
19.10.2020, appointing the 5th respondent as the Executive
Officer of the temple would also have to go as Section 29, under
which the said appointment is made, applies only to those
institutions, which are enlisted under Section 6 of the 1987 Act.
6 RRR,J
W.P.No.21986 of 2020
12. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed
setting aside the proceedings in Rc.No.J34584/93, dated
22.11.1995 passed by the 2nd respondent-Commissioner of
Endowments; the order of appointment of the 5th respondent as
the Executive Officer of the temple, by the 2nd respondent in his
Memo No.E2/15021/225/2020, dated 19.10.2020, and the
proceedings of the 3rd respondent -Assistant Commissioner
under a letter in Rc.No.A1/873/2020, dated 23.10.2020.
However, this shall not preclude the respondents from initiating
action, for fresh publication of Sri Venkateswara Swamy
Devalayam in Venkateswarapuram, Nellore Town, under the
provisions of Section 6 of the 1987 Act, after due and proper
notice is given to the petitioners and after considering their
objections.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall
stand closed.
____________________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
05-10- 2021
BSM
7 RRR,J
W.P.No.21986 of 2020
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
W.P.No.21986 of 2020
05-10-2021
BSM
