Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Dodla Murali Krishna Reddy vs The Commissioner Of Endowments, on 26 October, 2021
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
***
W.P.No.3308 of 2020
Between:
# Dodla Murali Krishna Reddy,
S/o. Ramakrishna Reddy,
Member Founder's Family
Sri Kodanda Rama Swamy Temple
Butchireddypalem Village and Mandal,
SPSR Nellore District.
... Petitioner
AND
$ 1. The Commissioner of Endowments, Gollapudi, Vijayawada.
2. The Executive Officer, Pudiparthi Group Temples, Venkatachalam
Mandal, Nellore District, FAC to Sri Kodanda Rama Swamy Temple,
Butchireddypalem Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.
3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (Endowments) Department,
Secretariat, Velagapudi, rep. by its Principal Secretary.
... Respondents
Date of Judgment pronounced on : 26-10-2021
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes/No
May be allowed to see the judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked : Yes/No
to Law Reporters/Journals:
3. Whether the Lordship wishes to see the fair copy : Yes/No
Of the Judgment?
2 RRR,J.
W.P.No.3308 of 2020
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT
AMARAVATI
* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
+ W.P.No.3308 of 2020
Date:26-10-2021
Between:
# Dodla Murali Krishna Reddy,
S/o. Ramakrishna Reddy,
Member Founder's Family
Sri Kodanda Rama Swamy Temple
Butchireddypalem Village and Mandal,
SPSR Nellore District.
... Petitioner
AND
$ 1. The Commissioner of Endowments, Gollapudi, Vijayawada.
2. The Executive Officer, Pudiparthi Group Temples, Venkatachalam
Mandal, Nellore District, FAC to Sri Kodanda Rama Swamy Temple,
Butchireddypalem Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.
3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (Endowments) Department,
Secretariat, Velagapudi, rep. by its Principal Secretary.
... Respondents
! Counsel for petitioner : Sri M. Vidyasagar
^Counsel for Respondents 1 & 3 : G.P. for Endowments
^Counsel for Respondent No.2 : Sri G. Ramana Rao, S.C
<GIST :
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred:
3 RRR,J.
W.P.No.3308 of 2020
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICER. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
W.P.No.3308 of 2020
ORDER:
The petitioner is a member of the founder family of Sri Kodanda
Rama Swamy Temple, Butchireddypalem Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore
District. This temple had been exempted from the provisions of
Sections 15 and 27 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions
and Endowments Act, 1966 (for short '1966 Act') by way of
G.O.Ms.No.598 Revenue (Endowments-I) Department dated 23.05.1977,
which was published in the A.P. Gazette.
2. The 1st respondent-Commissioner of Endowments had
issued Memo No.E2/15021/13/2020, dated 06.02.2020 appointing the 2nd
Respondent as an Executive Officer on full additional charge basis to Sri
Kodanda Rama Swamy Temple, Butchireddypalem Village and Mandal,
SPSR Nellore District. This Memo is challenged by the petitioner on the
ground that the Commissioner of Endowments could not have appointed
an Executive Officer, in view of the exemption granted by way of
G.O.Ms.No.598 dated 23.05.1977.
3. Section 15 of the 1966 Act deals with the appointment of the
Board of Trustees and term of office of the said Board, which corresponds
to Section 15 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and
Endowments Act, 1987 (for short 'the 1987 Act'). Similarly, Section27 of
the 1966 Act deals with the appointment and duties of Executive Officers
and corresponds to Section 29 of the 1987 Act. The exemption granted to
this temple by way of G.O.Ms.No.598 dated 23.05.1977 is an exemption
from any Executive Officer being appointed to this temple.
4 RRR,J.
W.P.No.3308 of 2020
4. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit in which it is
stated that this temple has huge extents of land which require
administration by a duly appointed Executive Officer. The counter affidavit
does not answer the contention of the petitioner that there is an
exemption for the appointment of such an Executive Officer. However, the
learned Government Pleader for Endowments submits that Section 29 of
the 1987 Act empowers the Commissioner to appoint an Executive Officer
and any exemption from such a provision would be by way of a
notification issued under Section 154 of the 1987 Act alone. She contends
that as the earlier exemption was under the 1966 Act, the said exemption
would not be available against Section 29 of the 1987 Act.
5. Section 154 of the 1987 Act reads as follows:
154. Exemptions. - The Government may by notification,
exempt from the operation of any of the provisions of this Act or
any of the rules made there under -
(a) any charitable institution or endowment the administration
of which was or is for the time being vested -
(i) in the Government either directly or through a
Committee or Treasurer of Endowments, appointed
for the purpose ;
(ii) in the official Trustee or in the Administrator General;
(b) any charitable institution or endowment founded for
educational purpose or for providing medical relief ; or
(c) any institution or endowment which is being well managed
by the founder ; or
(d) any institution or endowment ; and may likewise vary or
cancel such exemption.
6. This provision, prima facie, supports the contention of the
learned Government Pleader. However, section 155(2) (a) of the 1987 Act
requiresto be considered. The said provision reads as follows:
155. Repeals and Savings. - (1) The Andhra Pradesh
Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act,
5 RRR,J.
W.P.No.3308 of 2020
1966 and the Tirumala TirupathiDevasthanams Act, 1979 are
hereby repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding such repeal -
(a) all rules made, notifications or certificates issued,orders
passed, decision made, proceedings taken and other
things doneby any authority or officer under the repealed
Acts shall in so faras they are not inconsistent with this Act
be deemed to have beenmade, issued, passed, taken or
done by the appropriate authority orofficer under the
corresponding provisions of this Act and shall haveeffect
accordingly until they are modified, cancelled or
supersededunder the provisions of this Act ;
(b) xxxxxx
(c) xxxxxx
(d) xxxxxx
(e) xxxxxx
(f) xxxxxx
7. Section 155(2) (a) creates a legal fiction that all notifications
and orders passed under the 1966 Act shall be deemed to have been
passed under the corresponding provision of law in the 1987 Act. It
further states thatall orders, exemptions, notifications and proceedings
issued under the provisions of the 1966 Act would continue to remain
applicable to the institutions and the authorities under the 1987 Act also
unless they are either inconsistent with the provisions of the 1987 Act or
are modified, cancelled or superseded under the provisions of the 1987
Act.
8. In the present case, the exemption granted to the temple by
virtue of G.O.Ms.No.598 dated 23.05.1977 has neither been modified,
cancelled or superseded by any provision of the 1987 Act or by any
proceeding of any competent authority under the 1987 Act. The only
other issue which remains is whether the said G.O. is inconsistent with the
provisions of the 1987 Act. The exemption under G.O.Ms.No.598 dated
6 RRR,J.
W.P.No.3308 of 2020
23.05.1977 was granted under section 108 of the 1966 act. This provision
corresponds to Section 154 of the 1987 Act.
9. Section 108 of the 1966 Act reads as follows:
108. Exemptions. - The Government may by notification, in the
Andhra Pradesh Gazette, exempt from the operation of any of
the provisions of this Act or any of the rules made there under -
(a) any charitable institution or endowment the
administration of which is or is for the time being
vested -
(i) in the Government either directly or through a
Committee or Treasurer of Endowments,
appointed for the purpose; or
(ii) in the official Trustee or in the Administrator
General;
(b) any charitable institution or endowment founded for
educational purposes; or
(c) any religious institution or endowment and may
likewise vary or cancel such exemption.
10. Both Section15 of the 1966 Act and Section 15 of the 1987
Act require that a Board of Trustees shall be appointed for every religious
or charitable endowment or institution in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
Similarly, Section 27 of the 1966 Act and Section 29 of the 1987 require
that an Executive Officer shall be appointed for every religious and
charitable institution or endowment which has an income above
Rs.2,00,000/-. In both these Acts, there is a provision, viz., Section 108 of
the 1966 Act and Section 154 of the 1987 Act which grant power to the
Government to exempt any such institution or endowment from the
operation of any of the provisions of the respective Acts. This would mean
that an exemption from the operation of Sections 15 and 27 of the 1966
Act could be given under Section 108 of the 1966 Act and similar
exemptions could have been given under the provisions of Section 15 and
7 RRR,J.
W.P.No.3308 of 2020
29 of the 1987 Act under Section 154 of the 1987 Act. There is clearly no
inconsistency between the provisions of the 1966 Act and the 1987 Act
and consequently, the exemption granted to Sri Kodanda Rama Swamy
Temple, Butchireddypalem Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District,
under the provisions of Section 108 of 1966 Act is in no way inconsistent
with the provisions of the 1987 Act or the Rules made thereunder.
11. The exemption granted to this temple continues to remain in
force and consequently, the 1st respondent-Commissioner of Endowments
could not have appointed an Executive Officer to this temple.
12. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed setting aside the
MemoNo.E2/15021/13/2020, dated 06.02.2020 issued by the 1 st
respondent-Commissioner of Endowments, appointing the 2nd respondent
as the Executive Officer of Sri Kodanda Rama Swamy Temple,
Butchireddypalem Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. There shall
be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
________________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
th
26 October, 2021
Js
8 RRR,J.
W.P.No.3308 of 2020
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
W.P.No.3308 of 2020
26th October, 2021
Js
