Malyala Venkata Hara Gopala Rao vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 4359 AP

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

                         W.P.No.2687 of 2010
ORDER:

There is no representation for the petitioners.

The petitioners seek a direction to the 6th respondent-Sri

Kukkuteswara Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Pithapuram, E.G. District to

permit them to perform two programmes, viz., Lingodbhavakala

Abhishekam and Kumkumarchana Pooja on Mahasivaratri day, which fell

on 12.02.2010 and for conduct of such ceremonies thereafter.

This Court had passed an interim direction on 10.02.2010. In these

interim directions, it was recorded that right of the ancestors of the

petitioners for claiming such exclusive rights was initially allowed by the

Principal District Munsif, Peddapuram in O.S.No.94 of 1956, which was

decreed on 17.12.1957. However, this judgment stood reversed by the

judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Kakinada, dated 12.12.1959 in

A.S.No.57 of 1958 and the said order was confirmed by the erstwhile High

Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh by way of judgment in S.A.No.164

of 1960 dated 18.07.1963. This Court, had also observed in the very same

interim order that similar claims, made by the other members of the

Malayala family, to which the petitioners belonged, were dismissed by

order dated 09.02.2010 in W.P.M.P.No.675 of 2010 in W.P.No.27420 of

2008 and that the petitioners have not got this right adjudicated

anywhere.

A perusal of the material filed along with the writ petition would

show that there are complicated questions of fact which required to be

decided before any conclusion can be drawn in the present writ petition.

                                       2                               RRR,J.
                                                         W.P.No.2687 of 2010

Section 87 (1) (e) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious

Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short 'the Act') provides for

an alternative remedy before the Endowments Tribunal for a decision as

to whether the petitioners are entitled for such custom or honour.

In view of the presence of an effective alternative remedy and in

view of the fact that complicated questions of fact are required to be

decided, it would be appropriate to dispose of this writ petition leaving it

open to the petitioners to approach the Endowments Tribunal, if they so

choose, to agitate their rights. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

closed.

________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J th 27 October, 2021 Js 3 RRR,J.

W.P.No.2687 of 2010

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

W.P.No.2687 of 2010

27th October, 2021 Js