In These Two Writ Petitions vs S.P.Sahi
2022 Latest Caselaw 715 AP

             HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA

             WRIT PETITION Nos. 1470 & 1502 of 2022

COMMON ORDER:

      In these two writ petitions, the petitioners sought an appropriate

writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring order

of   the   2nd   respondent-Commissioner,      Endowments     Department,

Government of Andhra Pradesh, dated 05.01.2022 being illegal, arbitrary

and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and

Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987, vitiated by mala

fides, colourable exercise of power and unconstitutional.

2. The 1st petitioner in W.P.No.1502 of 2022- Sri Dhulipalla

Veeraiah Chowdary Memorial Trust, Vadlamudi village, is a registered

trust. The trust deed in respect thereof was entered into on 17.09.1994

and it was registered on the same day in the office of the Joint Sub

Registrar, Guntur. The 2nd petitioner in W.P.No.1502 of 2022 is described

as the donor in this deed of trust while the 1st petitioner in W.P.No.1470

of 2022 is also one of the trustees of this trust. The 2nd petitioner in

W.P.No.1470 of 2022 was former trustee of the same.

3. This trust, according to the petitioners in both these writ

petitions, was founded in the name of Sri Dhulipalla Veeraiah Chowdary,

who served as the President of Guntur District Milk Producers Cooperative

Union Limited and to commemorate his memory.

4. Since both these writ petitions are heard together where

identical arguments are addressed except reference to application of

Provisions of Indian Trust Act and their effect vis-à-vis Act 30 of 1987 in MVRJ, W.P.Nos.1470 & 1502 of 2022

w.P.No.1470 of 2022, they are now being disposed of together. The

parties as arrayed in W.P.No.1502 of 2022 shall be referred to hereinafter,

for convenience.

5. The deed of trust relating to the 1st petitioner trust sets out the

circumstances under which, it came to be set up, by virtue of the decision

in General Body Meeting of Guntur District Milk Producers Cooperative

Union Limited, for establishing farmers training centers, milk producers

training centers and to establish, aid and maintain educational and other

institutions. The contribution of the donor, namely the 2nd petitioner in

constituting the trust fund was Rs.1,116/-. Clause-3 of this deed of trust

sets out its objectives as under:

"a. To train farmers, milk producers and rural youth in Dairying, livestock production, agriculture and other allied activities so as to develop self employment in the rural areas.

b. To establish, aid and maintain educational and other institutions to impart education, at all stages for the promotion of literature, arts, sciences and other subjects specifically in Dairying, Animal husbandry and Agriculture.

c. To conduct cattle shows, milk yielding competitions and calf rallies. d. To conduct workshops/seminars which are useful to Milk Producers, Farmers and Dairy Industry.

e. To give financial assistance to the children of Milk Producers of Guntur District for higher education.

f. To train employees of Dairy for better skill and knowledge in modern Dairying.

g. To honour every year the best milk producer and the best Milk Producers' Cooperative Society in the District.

h. To honour the eminent persons in the fields of animal husbandry, dairying and agriculture for their outstanding services to the Rural Community."

6. Clause-5 of this deed of trust also provides for a mechanism to

derive funds from different sources that included those received from Milk MVRJ, W.P.Nos.1470 & 1502 of 2022

Producers' Cooperative Societies in Guntur District, donations,

subscriptions, contributions, gifts received from the employees of Sangam

Dairy and other public at large apart from the funds and properties

received from Guntur District Milk Producers Cooperative Union Limited.

This deed of trust provides for the management, to vest in the Board of

Trustees with a Managing Trustree, who incidentally is the 2nd petitioner.

7. This deed of trust also provides for winding up mechanism in

Clause-13, by means of which the assets and liabilities, if any, after

discharging of the liabilities of the trust shall be transferred to another

trust having similar objects and aims and registered with the Income Tax

Department under Section 12-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and

recognised under Section 80-G of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

8. This deed of trust was amended later, on 29.06.2002 to meet

the requirements of Income Tax Act under Section 12A and under Section

80G, making this trust irrevocable and that the benefits of the trust are

open to all, irrespective of caste, religion, sex etc.

9. Another amendment of the articles of this deed of trust was

brought on 06.10.2016 amending Clause 3(f) of the original deed of trust.

The following were incorporated by this amendment:

No Existing Clause Clause proposed to be amended/ altered/ added/ modified

3 f) To train employees of 3 f) to impart education by opening any Diary for better skill and institution, school, college etc., for general as knowledge in modern well as vocational; medical and technical dairy. education including skilled.

MVRJ, W.P.Nos.1470 & 1502 of 2022

NIL 3 f) To start, run maintain and manage educational institutions and manage the training institutions for advancement of education. Advancement, promotion and spread of education, science, art, literature and to encourage to the establishment, maintenance and support of colleges, schools, educational institutions, hostels, libraries, reading rooms or other educational institutions, providing grants, aids (financial or otherwise), donations, loans, scholarships, fees and prizes;

NIL 3 h) to start, run, maintain and manage medical institutions for medical relief and/ or maintain of the sick and/ or establishment, maintenance and support of or donations to one or more hospitals, dispensaries, nursing homes, medical centres and utilization of funds for medical relief of all kinds;

NIL 3 i) To help the needy students of all communities for the pursuance of studies.

NIL 3 j) to organise, equip and maintain hospitals, mobile medical centres, maternity homes, medical camps, etc., thereby rendering medical aid to the needy and poor people.

10. The 2nd petitioner, in terms of Clause-9 of the Trust deed, is its

Managing Trustee for life and the trusteeship, is hereditary where the law

of Primogeniture shall apply, if there is no nomination.

11. The 2nd respondent issued Form-II notice dated 05.01.2022 in

terms of Rule-5 of A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions &

Endowments Rules framed under Section 43 of the A.P.Charitable and

Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (Act 30 of 1987, for

short), calling upon the 2nd petitioner to make an application for

registration of the 1st petitioner trust within 15 days from the date of

receipt of this notice, on the premise that the 2nd petitioner, as person in-

charge of the management of the 1st petitioner trust, failed to apply for its MVRJ, W.P.Nos.1470 & 1502 of 2022

registration with the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments Department,

Guntur as required under Section 43(1) of the said Act.

12. Issuance of this notice is the cause for the petitioners to

approach this Court by means of these two writ petitions for the relief as

stated above.

13. Sangam Dairy is being run by Sangam Milk Producers Company

Limited. The Guntur District Milk Producers Union Limited initially was

registered under A.P.Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Act, 1995 on

01.02.1997. On the premise that procurement of milk increased many fold

and several milk products are being manufactured and marketed, this

Mutually Aided Cooperative Society was incorporated on 18.06.2013 under

the Companies Act, 1956 as a Producer Company under the name and

style 'Sangam Milk Producers Company Limited'.

14. It is the contention of the petitioners that, on 03.05.2016 the

1st petitioner decided to establish a hospital within the premises of

Sangam Dairy to cater the needs of the beneficiaries under this trust,

subject to payment of charges. While the general public are made to pay

for the services obtained in this hospital, as a regular private hospital, the

beneficiaries under this deed of trust, have certain amount of facility by

means of reduced rates of charges. This hospital is now known as

'Dhulipalla Veeraiah Chowdary Hospital and Research Centre', which was

originally named 'Dhulipalla Veeraiah Chowdary Hospital.

15. It is also relevant to note that Guntur District Milk Producers

Cooperative Union Limited, had also set apart Ac.10-00 of land in the MVRJ, W.P.Nos.1470 & 1502 of 2022

premises of Sangam Dairy to the 1st respondent trust, basing on the

proposal dated 13.09.1994 of its directors.

16. It is the contention of the petitioners in these two writ petitions

that the 1st petitioner trust is created for the benefit of an ascertained

body of individuals, namely milk producers, who supply milk to Sangam

Dairy, their families, employees of the dairy and their family members.

17. Thus, they contended that it is a purely private entity having

no public character, as demonstrated by its activities. It is also their

contention that the donors of this trust intended it being a private

organisation and never a public charitable institution or for the benefit of

the public at large.

18. The petitioners further contended that the 1st petitioner is an

inextricable part of Sangam Milk Producers Company Limited and its milk

producers. Stating that to wreck vengeance against the petitioners,

particularly the 2nd petitioner, the present ruling dispensation in the State

of Andhra Pradesh, to have control over Sangam Milk Producers Company

Limited, indirectly is trying to bring the 1st petitioner into its control and

fold, by virtue of the provisions of Act 30 of 1987, for which purpose the

impugned notice in Form-II is issued.

19. The petitioners also stated the alleged attempts of the present

dispensation in the Government, in the State to take over Sangam Dairy

issuing G.O.Ms.No.19, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and

Fisheries Department, dated 27.04.2021, which was subject matter of

challenge in W.P.No.9279 of 2021 on the file of this Court, where by an

order dated 07.05.2021 it was suspended in I.A.No.1 of 2021. The MVRJ, W.P.Nos.1470 & 1502 of 2022

petitioners further stated that W.A.No.281 of 2021 presented against the

above interim order was dismissed by Division Bench of this Court by the

judgment dated 01.09.2021.

20. The petitioners further referred to the notice issued by the

Joint Commissioner-cum-Executive Officer, Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy

Devasthanam, Vijayawada dated 17.08.2021 to the 2nd petitioner on the

memo issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh dated 06.08.2021

calling for certain information in the enquiry being conducted by her. The

2nd petitioner issued a reply dated 30.08.2021 to this notice disputing the

jurisdiction of the Government to direct an enquiry, also the authority of

the Joint Commissioner calling for such information and records, while

asserting the nature of this trust, being in the activity through paid

services and not as charity. Thus, the 2nd petitioner stated in his reply that

this hospital is not a charitable institution. A reference is also made in this

letter by the 2nd petitioner of a Polytechnic college for the course in dairy

technology set up by the 1st petitioner trust and admission of students on

allotment on Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupathi through counselling.

21. The petitioners also adverted to another notice in the nature of

memo issued by the 2nd respondent-Commissioner dated 25.10.2021

calling upon the 2nd petitioner to submit his objections with reference to

proposed publication of the 1st petitioner trust under Section 6 of Act 30

of 1987 stating that it is a 'Charitable Institution' as defined under Section

2(4) of the said Act and its purpose being charitable, within the definition

under Section 2(5) of the said Act. The 2nd petitioner on his behalf and on

behalf of the 1st petitioner objected to this course, by his reply dated MVRJ, W.P.Nos.1470 & 1502 of 2022

11.11.2021 addressed to the respondents 2 to 4 asserting its nature as a

private entity and not being a charitable institution nor serving charitable

purposes. Setting out that the primary object of the 1st petitioner trust is

not to establish hospital for charity but advancement of interest of milk

producers, it is stated that establishment of this hospital is only ancillary/

or incidental to the main object. Asserting that its activities are not

concerned to the general public or a section thereof, application of Act 30

of 1987 is denied. It is alleged that the present political dispensation in

the State is grudgingly militating against Sangam Milk Producers Company

Limited and persons concerned with it.

22. The official respondents through the 2nd respondent filed

counters resisting these writ petitions justifying issuance of Form-II notice

to the petitioners and questioning the maintainability of these writ

petitions. It is further stated in the counter-affidavits that Form-II notice

was issued in exercise of power vested in the 2nd respondent under

Section 44 of Act 30 of 1987 and following the provisions therein.

23. The 2nd respondent further stated in the counter-affidavits that

the Government of Andhra Pradesh came to know about the mal-

administration of the 1st petitioner represented by the 2nd petitioner as its

Managing Trustee and hence, vide memo No.Rev01-Endw/476/2021-Vig-

IV, dated 06.08.2021 appointed Smt. D.Bramaramba, Joint Commissioner

of Endowments Department & Executive Officer, Sri Durga Malleswara

Swamy Devasthanam, Vijayawada as an enquiry officer directing to

submit a detailed report thereon. It is further stated that pursuant to

material gathered in the course of such enquiry, a report was submitted MVRJ, W.P.Nos.1470 & 1502 of 2022

stating that the assessable income of the 1st petitioner trust exceeded

Rs.25,00,000/-, coming within the purview of Section 6(a)(i) of Act 30 of

1987 and that, it is a 'Public Charitable Institution' within the purview of

Section 1(3)(a) of A.P.Act 30 of 1987.

24. It is further stated in the counter-affidavits that the 6th

respondent and four others presented a representation to the 2nd

respondent on 28.09.2021 levelling certain allegations against the 2nd

petitioner in the administration of the 1st petitioner trust requesting

appropriate action in order to serve the public interest. It is also stated in

the counter-affidavits that it was got enquired into by the Assistant

Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur (4th respondent) through

the 5th respondent and submitted a report vide Lr. Rc.No.A2/7853/2021,

dated 20.12.2021 to the Commissioner, Endowments recommending

registration of the 1st petitioner trust in terms of Section 43(1) of Act 30 of

1987. Explaining the reasons in issuing Form-II notice to the petitioners

on account of the orders of this Court in W.P.No.21986 of 2020 dated

05.10.2021, W.P.No.10283 of 2021 dated 22.11.2021 as well as I.A.No.1

of 2021 in W.P.No.28588 of 2021 dated 06.12.2021, being the law laid

down, it is stated that the procedure so directed by these orders is

followed in issuing the impugned Form-II notice to the 2nd petitioner.

25. It is asserted in this counter-affidavit that the 1st petitioner

trust is created for public charitable purposes, benefits of which are open

to all irrespective of caste, religion, sex etc. Thus contending that this 1st

petitioner trust, is within the purview of the provisions of Act 30 of 1987,

it is stated that in view of constitution of Endowment Tribunal under MVRJ, W.P.Nos.1470 & 1502 of 2022

Section 87 of this Act, the dispute as to nature of institution, as a

charitable institution in terms of Section 2(5) of Act 30 of 1987 is within its

purview and exclusive jurisdiction. Reference is also made to the

declaration submitted for income tax purposes in the returns of the 1st

petitioner as a public charitable trust, which was registered under Section

12 AA (1)(b)(i) of the Income Tax Act and its approval in terms of Section

80G. Thus, it is stated in the counter affidavits that this institution is liable

to be registered in terms of Section 43 of A.P. Act 30 of 1987. Pointing

out the nature of activities of the 1st petitioner trust, it is stated in the

counter-affidavits that, it is a public charitable trust.

26. The respondents 6 to 11 got impleaded themselves as per

orders in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in W.P.No.1502 of 2022. They supported the

stand of the official respondents in this matter mainly contending that the

1st petitioner is a public charitable institution. However, no formal counter

is filed on behalf of the respondents 6 to 11 in W.P.No.1502 of 2022.

27. Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, learned senior counsel for Sri

V.Venugopala Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.1047 of

2022 and for Sri Srinivas Bodduliri, learned counsel for the petitioners in

W.P.No.1502 of 2022 addressed arguments on behalf of the petitioners.

Sri S.Sri Ram, learned Advocate General, addressed arguments on behalf

of the official respondents 1 to 5. Sri Prabhunath Vasireddy, learned

counsel for the respondents 6 to 11 in W.P.No.1502 of 2022 addressed

arguments on their behalf.

28. The essential questions to determine in these two writ petitions

are:

MVRJ, W.P.Nos.1470 & 1502 of 2022

1. Whether issuance of Form-II notice to the petitioners in W.P.No.1502 of 2022 by the 2nd respondent is justified applying provisions of Act 30 of 1987?

2. Whether writ petitions as filed are maintainable since directed against the impugned Form-II notice?

3. Whether the action of the 2nd respondent in serving this notice to the petitioners 1 and 2 in W.P.No.1502 of 2022 is fraught with malice in law or fact?

4. Relief to grant?

POINT No.1:

29. It is the contention of the petitioners that the 1st petitioner is

not a charitable institution having public character and nature and

therefore it is not within the purview of any of the provisions of A.P. Act

30 of 1987.

30. Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, learned senior counsel for the

petitioners, making a copious reference to following provisions of A.P. Act

30 of 1987 tried to substantiate this stand of the petitioners.

31. Section 1(3)(a) of Act 30 of 1987 reads as follows:

"1(3)(a) all public charitable institutions and endowments, whether registered or not, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, other than Wakfs governed by the provisions of the Wakfs Act, 1954.

Explanation:- In this clause, the expressing "public charitable institutions and endowments" shall include every charitable institution or endowment the administration of which is for the time being vested in any department of Government, or Civil Court, Zilla Praja parishad, Municipality or local authority, or any company, society, organisation, institution or other person;"

32. Charitable Institution is defined in Section 2(4) of this Act as

under:

MVRJ, W.P.Nos.1470 & 1502 of 2022

"2(4) 'charitable institution' means any establishment, undertaking, organisation or association formed for a charitable purpose and includes a specific endowment and dharmadayam"

33. Charitable purpose in Section 2(5) of this Act is defined as

follows:

2(5) 'charitable purpose' includes-

(a) relief of poverty or distress;

(b) education;

(c) medical relief;

(d) advancement of any other object of utility or welfare to the general public or a section thereof not being an object of an exclusively religious nature"

34. Section-6 of this Act relates to 'Preparation and Publication of

list of charitable and religious institutions and endowments on the basis of

income'. Three categories of institutions and endowments are brought

within the fold of this Section. Mainly the institutions other than maths

having annual income exceeding rupees twenty five lakhs, are one

category. Next category being these institutions with annual income

exceeding rupees two lakhs, which did not exceed rupees twenty five

lakhs and the third category is those which did not fall within the above

two categories. Maths and Dharmadayam irrespective of income are also

brought within the fold of Section 6 of this Act. Powers and functions of

hierarchy of the officers of the Endowments Department are set out in

Sections 8 to 11 of this Act.

35. Section 14 of this Act provides for vesting of all the properties

in the institution or endowment.

MVRJ, W.P.Nos.1470 & 1502 of 2022

36. Chapter-IV of this Act is important for the present purpose. It

relates to registration of charitable and religious institutions and

endowments. Specific procedure is provided in Section-43 for this

purpose. Every charitable and religious institution or endowment, shall be

registered in terms of section 43 by the trustee or other person in-charge

of their management. A detailed procedure is set out with reference to

processing the application filed under Section 43(1) that should contain

particulars in terms of Section 43(4) of the Act 30 of 1987.

37. It directed the procedure to follow by the Assistant

Commissioner, who received such application, to make an enquiry as

thinks fit and hearing any person having interest in the institution or

endowment in terms of Section 43(5) of this Act. The Assistant

Commissioner is ordained to pass order on such application directing

registration of the institution and grant to the trustee or other person a

certificate of registration containing the particulars furnished in the

application with alterations, if any, made by him as a result of his enquiry.

These particulars in terms of Section 43(6) of this Act shall be entered in

the register of institutions and endowments maintained by the Assistant

Commissioner of jurisdiction.

38. Entries in the register so maintained, are amenable for

challenge before Endowment Tribunal in terms of Section 45 of this Act by

an aggrieved person. Section 46 of this Act provides for a presumption to

be drawn, in respect of the entries or particulars in the register

maintained under Section 43 of this Act being genuine and that a certified MVRJ, W.P.Nos.1470 & 1502 of 2022

copy of an entry in this register, shall be admissible in evidence in any

Court.

39. The 2nd respondent issued Form-II stated to be in exercise of

power under Section 44 of this Act. Section 44 reads as under:

"44. Power of Commissioner to have the institution or endowment registered:- Where any trustee or other person in charge of the management of a charitable or religious institution or endowment fails to apply for the registration of the institution or endowment, the Commissioner, shall give notice to the trustee or the other person aforesaid to make an application in that regard within a specified period and if he fails to make such application within the period specified, the Commissioner may have the institution or endowment registered after following the prescribed procedure and recover the cost incurred for such registration from the funds of such institution or endowment."

40. Application of Section 44 of this Act comes into play when any

trustee or other person incharge of management of a charitable or

religious institution or endowment fails to apply for registration. Upon

such failure the Commissioner is ordained to issue notice to the trustee or

other person to make an application in that regard within a specified

period. In default, the commissioner has discretion to have the institution

or endowment registered after following the procedure and recover costs

incurred for such registration from the funds of the institution or

endowment.

41. Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, learned senior counsel, contended

;further that in terms of Section 43 of A.P.Act 30 of 1987 while application

to be made to the Assistant commissioner for registration is a voluntary

act by applicant, Section 44 of this Act requires registration of a Charitable

institution in compelling circumstances under the orders of the

Commissioner of Endowments. It is further contended that when the MVRJ, W.P.Nos.1470 & 1502 of 2022

authority rests with a properly constituted Tribunal under this Act to

decide and adjudicate such questions or issues in dispute, the 2nd

respondent Commissioner cannot have jurisdiction to determine the

nature of the institution unilaterally and issue the impugned notice.

Therefore, it is contended that, upon considering the objections raised by

the 2nd petitioner at every stage, prior to issuance of impugned form-II

notice, it is but necessary for the 2nd respondent to approach Endowment

Tribunal under Section 87 of this Act for adjudicating the nature and

character of the 1st petitioner trust, as a charitable institution.

42. Learned senior counsel also contended that the 1st petitioner

institution remained a private entity for all purposes and did not have a

public character nor serving the public purpose in general.

Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, learned senior counsel, cautioned this Court not to

consider the question as to the nature of this institution as a public

charitable institution or a private entity in as much as Section 87(1)(a) of

this Act expressly provided for determination of such issue by Endowment

Tribunal upon proper enquiry. Learned senior counsel further pointed out

that for this purpose, evidence has to be let-in in a regularly constituted

enquiry and such question cannot be decided in a summary manner in a

writ petition.

43. Sri S.Sriram, learned Advocate General referring to the

provisions of the Act 30 of 1987 including Section 87 of this Act as to

powers conferred on the Endowment Tribunal constituted under Section

162 of this Act, brought to the notice of this Court, the presumption to

draw in respect of the matters covered by certain clauses therein.

MVRJ, W.P.Nos.1470 & 1502 of 2022

Important for the present purpose is clause (a) of Section 87(1) relating

to determination, whether an institution is a charitable institution or not.

44. This presumption in terms of Section 87(4) is to the effect that

an institution or endowment is a public one and that the burden of proof

in all such cases lies on the person claiming the institution or endowment

to be private. Therefore, learned Advocate General Sri S.Sri Ram

contended that the burden is on the petitioners to establish that the 1st

petitioner institution is a private entity and not a public charitable

institution.

45. However, Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned senior counsel,

contended that this presumption under Section 87(4) of this Act is can be

raised only in a dispute pending before the Endowment Tribunal and it is

not a general presumption applicable to all instances. Learned senior

counsel further contended that the foundational facts should be laid by

means of evidence to apply the presumption under Section 87(4) of Act

30 of 1987.

46. In spite of the contention that this Court cannot go into the

question whether the 1st petitioner institution is of public character or not,

strenuous effort is made by Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, learned senior counsel

referring to various rulings of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the tests to apply to

draw a distinction between these entities and to identify their exact

character and nature.

47. A well-known decision of Constitution Bench of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Mahant Ram Saroop Dasji vs. S.P.Sahi, Special MVRJ, W.P.Nos.1470 & 1502 of 2022

Officer-in-charge of the Hindu Religious Trusts and others1 is

relied on by Sri B.Adinaayana Rao, learned senior counsel, pointing out

the distinction between 'religious endowment', which is public in nature or

which is private. With reference to religious endowments in terms of

Hindu Law, in para-6 of this decision, it is stated as under:

"In order to appreciate this argument it is necessary to state first the distinction in Hindu law between religious endowments which are public and those which are private. To put it briefly, the essential distinction is that in a public trust the beneficial interest is vested in an uncertain and fluctuating body of persons, either the public at large or some considerable portion of it answering a particular description; in a private trust the beneficiaries are definite and ascertained individuals or who within a definite time can be definitely ascertained. The fact that the uncertain and fluctuating body of persons is a section of the public following a particular religious faith or is only a sect of persons of a certain religious persuasion would not make any difference in the matter and would not make the trust a private trust (see the observations in Nabi Shirazi v. Province of Bengal) [(1942) ILR 1 Cal 211, 228]. ...."

48. Sri S.Sri Ram, learned Advocate General, also relied on the

same passage, drawing attention of this Court to the factors required and

definition of 'religious trust' considered in this decision. Sri S. Sri Ram,

learned Advocate General, referring to the test to apply in this context,

relied on observations in Para-43 of this ruling, which are:

"43. When the origin of an endowment is obscure and no direct oral evidence is available, the Court will have to resolve the controversy about the character of the trust on documentary evidence, if any, the object and purpose for which the trust was created, the consistent manner in which the property has been dealt with or managed by those in charge, the manner in which the property has long been used by the public, the contribution of the public, to all intents and purpose, as a matter of right without the least interference or restriction from the temple authorities, to foster maintenance of the worship, the accretion to the trust property by way of grants from the State or gifts from outsiders inconsistent with the private nature of the trust, the nature of devolution of the property, are all important elements in determination of the question whether a property is a private or a public religious endowment. We are satisfied that in this case all the above tests are fulfilled."

. 1959 Supp (2) SCR 583 : AIR 1959 SC 951 MVRJ, W.P.Nos.1470 & 1502 of 2022

49. Reliance is further placed in the same context on

Dhaneshwarbuwa Guru Purshottambuwa, owner of Shri Vithal

Rukhamai Sansthan vs. The Charity Commissiioiner, State of

Bombay2, Bala Shankar Maha Shanker Bhattjee and others v.

Charity Commissioner, Gujarat State3, Idol of Sri

Renganathaswamy represented by its Executive Officer, Joint

Commissioner v. P.K.Thoppulan Chettiar, Ramanuja Koodam

Anandhana Trust, rep. By its Managing Trustee and others4 apart

from a judgment of learned single Judge of this Court in Duvvuri Rama

Krishna Rao Tust v. The Deputy Commissioner, Endowments

Department and another5.

50. The respondents 6 to 11 and the petitioners relied on Deoki

Nandan v. Murlidhar and others6 for the same purpose. In para-5 of

this ruling it is thus observed:

"5. It will be convenient first to consider the principles of law applicable to a determination of the question whether an endowment is public or private, and then to examine, in the light of those principles, the facts found or established. The distinction between a private and a public trust is that whereas in the former the beneficiaries are specific individuals, in the latter they are the general public or a class thereof. While in the former the beneficiaries are persons who are ascertained or capable of being ascertained, in the latter they constitute a body which is incapable of ascertainment. The position is thus stated in Lewin on Trusts, 15th Edn., pp. 15-16:

"By public must be understood such as are constituted for the benefit either of the public at large or of some considerable portion of it answering a particular description. To this class belong all trusts for charitable purposes, and indeed public trusts and charitable trusts may be considered in general as synonymous expressions. In private

. (1976) 2 SCC 417

. 1995 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 485

. 2020 SCC OnLine SC 214

. 2015 SCC OnLine Hyd 307: (2016) 1 ALD 129

. AIR 1957 SC 133 MVRJ, W.P.Nos.1470 & 1502 of 2022

trusts the beneficial interest is vested absolutely in one or more individuals who are, or within a certain time may be, definitely ascertained...."

Vide also the observations of Mitter J. in Nabi Shirazi v. Province of Bengal [ILR (1942) 1 Cal 211, 227, 228] . Applying this principle, a religious endowment must be held to be private or public, according as the beneficiaries thereunder are specific persons or the general public or sections thereof."

51. This ruling is cited and followed in the later rulings of Hon'ble

Supreme Court and many High Courts.

52. In view of the caution which this Court requires to observe, to

consider the nature of the 1st petitioner as a public charitable institution or

a private entity, suggested by Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, learned senior

counsel and also Sri S.Sri Ram, learned Advocate General, the status of

the 1st petitioner for the limited purpose required in these writ petitions

needs attention and in order to find out if the impugned action of the 2nd

respondent issuing Form-II notice is justified. Having regard to the effect

of Section 87 of Act 30 of 1987, when a properly constituted tribunal is

vested with jurisdiction and authority, to determine action of this nature

which is in dispute, as rightly pointed out on behalf of both the parties,

this Court has to tread on a path, bearing in mind the contours of the

present action.

53. Sri S.Sri Ram, learned Advocate General, strenuously

contended explaining the circumstances under which the 2nd respondent

had to extend his power and jurisdiction under Section 44 of Act 30 of

1987. They are- (1) the deed of trust of the 1st petitioner with an

indenture, (2) stand of the petitioners in relation to gaining exemptions in

terms of Section 12-A (i)(v)(i) and Section 80G of the Income Tax Act and

(3) nature of the activity carried out by this institution in running hospital MVRJ, W.P.Nos.1470 & 1502 of 2022

and Polytechnic college, and (4) stand of the 2nd petitioner in a pending

civil suit.

54. Admittedly, a suit in terms of Section 92 CPC in O.S.No.487 of

2016 is pending on the file of the Court of the learned XII Additional

District Judge, Guntur. The respondents 6 to 11 filed this suit against the

2nd petitioner. The relief sought in this suit included removal of the 2nd

petitioner as the Managing Trustee of the 1st petitioner trust among other

things. In para-4 of the written statement filed by the 1st petitioner, it is

the version of the 2nd petitioner that the clauses of the trust deed provide

for benefits to all and the question whether the beneficiaries are milk

producers or not is not relevant. These statements are made in the

context of nature of the lis in the suit. Amendments brought to this deed

of trust are also stated in the written statement to the effect that the

benefit under the trust is not confined to the milk producers alone and it is

for the benefit of all. Thus, it is contended for the respondents that the

contents of this written statement belie the stand of the 2nd petitioner at

present in these writ petitions.

55. Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, learned senior counsel in this context

contended that averments in the written statement cannot be deemed

'admissions' and necessarily they should be considered in the context of

the circumstances with reference to explaining a particular situation.

56. As rightly contended by Sri S.Sri Ram, learned Advocate

General, to justify the action in issuing Form-II notice, the 2nd respondent

Commissioner should find basis. It is the jurisdiction conferred statutorily

on him. Therefore, as rightly contended for the respondents, upon MVRJ, W.P.Nos.1470 & 1502 of 2022

consideration of the material available and the stand of the petitioners as

to nature of the activity carried on by the 1st petitioner trust, in the

considered opinion of the second petitioner, such notice was issued.

57. Prominently, as pointed out by Sri Prabhunath Vasireddy,

learned counsel for the respondents 6 to 11, the income tax returns filed

on behalf of the 1st petitioner refer the status of the 1st petitioner as 'a

public charitable trust'. The amendments brought out referred to supra to

this deed of trust are, indeed is for this purpose and they were put into

action, as is reflected in the income tax returns.

58. Pointing out divergence in the conduct and stand of the

petitioners in the suit and in the present matters, it is contended for the

respondents that an attempt is made, to present a picture as if provisions

of Act 30 of 1987 did not apply to the petitioners.

59. Sri S. Sri Ram, learned Advocate General, draws parity

between definition of 'Charitable purpose' in Section 2 (5) of Act 30 of

1987 and Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act which defines 'charitable

purpose' for registration of a trust or institution under Section 12(AA) of

the Income Tax Act. It is further contended that that the 2nd respondent

Commissioner formed his opinion on such basis and when similar tests are

required to apply with reference to Section 44 of the Act 30 of 1987, to

construe an institution whether a public charitable institution or not, no

exception can be made out. Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, learned senior counsel

referring to these provisions of the Income Tax Act in reply contended

that they are not referable to a Public Charitable Trust relying on the

effect of Sections 11,12 and 12A of the Income Tax Act.

MVRJ, W.P.Nos.1470 & 1502 of 2022

60. Suffice to consider for the present purpose, the uncontroverted

statements in the nature of I.T.returns of the 1st petitioner institution

which clearly referred to status of this trust as a public charitable trust. It

is not necessary in the circumstances to elaborate on the effect of all

these provisions of the Income Tax Act.

61. It is contended for the petitioners that the activities of this

trust in running a hospital subject to payment of fee from all those

entitled to use it including public in general, upon issuing health cards to

the milk producers, who are part of Sangam Dairy and its employees is

not an indicator of nature of this trust. Further contention is advanced

basing on the preliminary report of Smt. D.Bramaramba, Joint

Commissioner, where there is reference to income derived from Dhulipalla

Veeraiah Chowdary Hospital and Polytechnic college. The tabulated

statement in this preliminary report, referring to the income tax returns of

the 1st petitioner trust for the years 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 shows

income from these two entities at Rs.11,47,850/-, Rs.2,26,96,926/- and

Rs.6,49,48,131/- respectively. The income so generated, according to the

contention of the petitioners is demonstrative of the nature of this

institution and thus it is not a public charitable institution.

62. On behalf of the official respondents, it is contended that

merely because certain fee or charges are levied in extending such

services to particular sections entitled to these facilities or the general

public, it cannot be a instance of the 1st petitioner trust being a private

institution and not a public charitable trust. It is also pointed out for the

respondents that running Polytechnic college drawing the pupil through MVRJ, W.P.Nos.1470 & 1502 of 2022

Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupathi on counselling is another indicator

of nature of use of the facilities provided by this trust.

63. The facilities or amenities provided by the 1st petitioner trust

are not for an identified class of entities or an ascertained body of

individuals or a select group in exclusion to others, as the prima facie

material in this case indicated.

64. The indenture of the trust deed, setting out the purpose in

establishing this trust as well as its objects, prima facie indicate the same

purpose. Source of funds to this trust referred supra including from public

at large is another indicator in this direction. Powers of Board of Trustees

to accept endowments, donations etc., set out in this trust deed supports

this inference. The version of the 2nd petitioner in O.S.No.487 of 2016 on

the file of the Court of the learned XII-Additional District Judge, Guntur, in

a scheme suit when viewed in this background, further strengthens the

nature of this trust. The averments in the written statement of the 2nd

petitioner in the suit reflect his stand.

65. In the preliminary reports of Smt. D.Bramaramba-Joint

Commissioner to the 2nd respondent Commissioner or in the memo dated

25.10.2021 factors and circumstances are stated to apply Act 30 of 1987

to this trust.

66. The contents of the deed of trust and the I.T.Statements

cannot be brushed aside on behalf of the petitioners, being ill-drafted or

amalgamous or self-descriptions. The petitioners cannot afford to disown

these documents and their effect. Further, it has to be borne in mind that

all these documents emanated during the period when the petitioners MVRJ, W.P.Nos.1470 & 1502 of 2022

were at peace without any challenge to their constitution or activities.

They are bound by the contents of these documents, which did offer

prima facie material to consider nature and character of the 1st petitioner

trust.

67. One of the contentions of Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, learned

senior counsel for the petitioners, is that when an elaborate reply dated

11.11.2021 was issued to the memo dated 25.10.2021 disputing the claim

of the 2nd respondent Commissioner of Endowment, it has not been

adjudicated upon by proper forum. Impugned notice, in fact is an order of

the 2nd respondent according to the petitioner, requiring them to comply.

68. However, the 2nd respondent in his counter-affidavit specifically

referred to the events particularly orders of one of the learned Judges of

this Court in W.P.No.21986 of 2020 and W.P.No.10283 of 2021, directing

to follow certain procedure with reference to application of Sections 43

and 44 of Act 30 of 1987. In W.P.No.10283 of 2021, learned Judge

specifically directed these official respondents to follow the procedure

ordained therein. In application of Section 44 of the Act, the learned

Judge directed thus:

"B) Where the registration is carried out under Section 44 of the Act, the following procedure shall be followed:

i) The Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner either suo motu or on such information that is given to him, shall give a report to the Commissioner, Endowments detailing the institution that requires to be registered and the names of the person or persons, who have failed to approach the competent Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner under Section 43 of the Act.

ii) Upon such information being given by the Assistant Commissioner, or being received from any other source, the Commissioner shall issue notices under Form-II to all persons, MVRJ, W.P.Nos.1470 & 1502 of 2022

who are in default, to file an application for registration within the time given in the notice.

iii) The Commissioner shall also issue notices to all persons having interest in the institution either by way of personal notice or by way of publication of the notice in the local news papers or both, giving opportunity to such persons to put-forth their views and objections on the aspect of registration as well as the details which are to be contained under Section 43(4) of the Act.

iv) The Trustees, persons in management and/or the persons having interest are entitled to file their objections in relation to the question of whether the said Institution is liable to be registered and/or the details that are required to be included in the register under Section 43 of the Act. They may also place such material as they deem necessary before the Commissioner. After giving adequate opportunity for all such objections to be filed, the Commissioner after considering these objections and material submitted by the objectors and after such enquiry as may be deemed fit, shall take a decision as to whether the institution is to be registered or not and the details that need to be registered under Section 43(4) of the Act.

v) In the event of the Commissioner determining that the institution requires to be registered, he shall issue directions to the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner to register the institution along with the details that need to be entered in the register under Section 43(4) of the Act.

vi) Upon such instructions being received, the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner shall register the institution duly entering of the details required under Section 43(4) of the Act. This process shall be done at the cost of the institution."

69. Reasons are also assigned in the order in W.P.No.10283 of

2021 in drawing such procedure particularly with reference to notice,

finding it as a fundamental requirement of natural justice.

70. The reason so assigned by the 2nd respondent in this context

cannot be brushed aside. When there are directions of the Court, when

the 2nd respondent is a party to W.P.No.10283 of 2021, he is bound to

follow. These directions particularly with reference to prior notice of the

action contemplated either under Section 43 or 44 to all concerned are

indeed in application of these provisions. The legislature prescribed in MVRJ, W.P.Nos.1470 & 1502 of 2022

Section 45 of the Act 30 of 1987, a procedure to challenge the entries

made in the Endowment Register. A robust mechanism thus is now

provided affording multiple opportunities for the aggrieved or affected by

the action of the authorities under the Act 30 of 1987.

71. In this backdrop, it is certain that it is not for the official

respondents to invoke Section 87 of Act 30 of 1987 merely basing on the

assertions and disputations of the 2nd petitioner with reference to the

status of the 1st petitioner trust. The jurisdiction conferred on the 2nd

respondent in terms of Section 44 as well as authority, is hedged by

Section 87 of the Act 30 of 1987 as pointed out by Sri S.Sri Ram, learned

Advocate General, and any action taken in terms thereof is subject to

challenge before the Endowments Tribunal under Section 87 of Act 30 of

1987.

72. If the effect of Section 87(4) relating to presumptions is

considered, it is not permissible to confine its operation in respect of those

matters pending determination before the Endowment Tribunal. The

instances that bear presumption of public character in their favour, can be

invoked and applied for all purposes under Act 30 of 1987 alone.

Necessarily foundational facts to make out an institution being charitable

or endowment, need be established before raising this presumption.

73. In W.P.No.1470 of 2022 application of Act 30 of 1987 to the 1st

petitioner trust is questioned on the ground that it is already a trust

registered under Section 5 of the Indian Trust Act and therefore very

foundation in issuing directions in Form-II to register again under local

enactment shall fail. In this context, reference is also made to Section 156 MVRJ, W.P.Nos.1470 & 1502 of 2022

of Act 30 of 1987 under which central enactments enlisted thereunder

cease to apply to charitable and religious institutions. It is also contended

that in view of Article 254 of Constitution, law made by the Parliament

prevails with respect to matters enumerated in the concurrent list over a

local legislation of the State to the extent of repugnancy and therefore,

the 1st petitioner trust cannot be brought within the ambit of Act 30 of

1987.

74. Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, learned senior counsel for the

petitioner, contended that this particular ground raised has not been

controverted in the counter by the 2nd respondent nor any specific stand

of the official respondents is forthcoming.

75. It is contended on behalf of the official respondents that what

all 2nd respondent did in issuing Form-II notice is to follow the order of

this Court in W.P.No.10283 of 2021 where specific directions are set out

including with reference to application of Section 44 of Act 30 of 1987.

76. Section 156 of Act 30 of 1987 is not specifically challenged in

these writ petitions, on the grounds set out by the petitioners in

W.P.No.1470 of 2022. Therefore, its validity vis-à-vis the central

enactment like Indian Trust Act, is not a question open for determination

now.

77. Section-1 of Indian Trust Act provides for savings. On account

of the effect of the same, the provisions of the said Act, are not applicable

to public or private religious or charitable endowments. In these

circumstances, the objections so raised on behalf of the petitioners in

W.P.No.1470 of 2022 cannot stand.

MVRJ, W.P.Nos.1470 & 1502 of 2022

78. Thus, it is contended for the respondents that a cumulative

consideration of all these instances, which the 2nd respondent did, made

out a prima facie inference that the 1st petitioner is a public charitable

institution. Thus, Sri Sri Ram, learned Advocate General justified the

action of the 2nd respondent in issuing Form-II notice to the petitioners on

a tentative opinion formulated.

79. Sufficient material is found to hold propriety in the action of

the 2nd respondent against the petitioners. The action of the 2nd

respondent in issuing Form-II notice is justified, in the circumstances.

Contention of the official respondents requires acceptance in preference

to that the petitioners.

80. Therefore, rejecting the contentions of the petitioners, it is held

that the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing Form-II notice invoking his

power and jurisdiction in terms of Section 44 of Act 30 of 1987 is proper.

POINT No.2:

81. Sri S.Sri Ram, learned Advocate General, contended that a

notice so issued to the petitioners cannot be subject matter of challenge

in the writ petition due to its very nature and time and again the Apex

Court has warned, with interference of notices of this nature.

82. Placing reliance in Special Director and another v. Mohd.

Ghulam Ghouse and another7, this contention is advanced by learned

Advocate General. In para-5 of this ruling in this context it is observed:

. (2004) 3 SCC 440 MVRJ, W.P.Nos.1470 & 1502 of 2022

"5 This Court in a large number of cases has deprecated the practice of the High Courts entertaining writ petitions questioning legality of the show- cause notices stalling enquiries as proposed and retarding investigative process to find actual facts with the participation and in the presence of the parties. Unless the High Court is satisfied that the show-cause notice was totally non est in the eye of the law for absolute want of jurisdiction of the authority to even investigate into facts, writ petitions should not be entertained for the mere asking and as a matter of routine, and the writ petitioner should invariably be directed to respond to the show-cause notice and take all stands highlighted in the writ petition. Whether the show-cause notice was founded on any legal premises, is a jurisdictional issue which can even be urged by the recipient of the notice and such issues also can be adjudicated by the authority issuing the very notice initially, before the aggrieved could approach the court."

83. Another ruling relied on by Sri S.Sri Ram, learned Advocate

General in the same context is State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Brahm Datt

Sharma and another8. In para-9 of this ruling, in a situation where a

Government servant was issued a show-cause-notice basing on a

statutory provision, interfering with the order of the High Court in

quashing such show-cause-notice, the observations recorded are:

"9. ...... When a show cause notice is issued to a government servant under a statutory provision calling upon him to show cause, ordinarily the government servant must place his case before the authority concerned by showing cause and the courts should be reluctant to interfere with the notice at that stage unless the notice is shown to have been issued palpably without any authority of law. 'The purpose of issuing show cause notice is to afford opportunity of hearing to the government servant and once cause is shown it is open to the Government to consider the matter in the light of the facts and submissions placed by the government servant and only thereafter a final decision in the matter could be taken. Interference by the court before that stage would be premature, the High Court in our opinion ought not have interfered with the show cause notice."

84. Another judgment of this Court relied on by Sri S.Sri Ram,

learned Advocate General, is Kothamaram Nagi Reddy and 5 others

v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. By its Principal

Secretary, Revenue (Excise-II), Secretariat, Hyderabad and 8

. (1987) 2 SCC 179 MVRJ, W.P.Nos.1470 & 1502 of 2022

others9. In respect of interference with the administrative decision in

Judicial Review Proceedings, the role of the Court is stated thus:

While examining an administrative decision, in judicial review proceedings, the Court does not act as a court of appeal and record a finding whether such decision could have been taken otherwise in the facts and circumstances of the case. The doctrine that powers must be exercised reasonably has to be reconciled with the no less important doctrine that the court must not usurp the discretion of the public authority appointed to take the decision. Within the bounds of legal reasonableness is the area in which the deciding authority has genuinely free discretion. If it passes those bounds, it acts ultra vires. The court must therefore resist the temptation to draw the bounds too tightly, merely according to its own opinion. It must strive to apply an objective standard which leaves to the deciding authority the full range of choices which the legislature is presumed to have intended. Decisions which are extravagant or capricious cannot be legitimate. But if the decision is within the confines of reasonableness, it is no part of the court's function to look further into its merits. 'With the question whether a particular policy is wise or foolish the court is not concerned; it can only interfere if to pursue it is beyond the powers of the authority." (Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M & N Publications Ltd.17; Administrative Law, Prof. Wade)...."

85. Thus, it is contended for the respondents that in a proceedings

of this nature, in the backdrop of the facts and circumstances, this Court

cannot step-in to interdict the jurisdiction so exercised by the 2nd

respondent.

86. These rulings relied on by the learned Advocate General are

fact based and basing on the requirements of law considered therein, it

was so held, according to Sri B.Adinarayana, learned senior counsel, and

therefore they are inapplicable to the present situation.

87. Form-II notice issued to the petitioners is in the nature of

reminding them of their obligation in terms of Section 43 of Act 30 of

1987 to register this institution. Not only on account of the inbuilt

safeguards in Section 43 and as provided by Section 45 of Act 30 of 1987,

. (2013) 3 ALT 521 MVRJ, W.P.Nos.1470 & 1502 of 2022

ruling in W.P.No.10283 of 2021 is providing for procedure to follow in a

situation of this nature. Thus, there is scope and opportunity for the

petitioners to ventilate and agitate their grievances before appropriate

forum to a full measure.

88. These decisions relied on by the learned Advocate General are

apt and they squarely cover the present situation. Therefore, filing these

writ petitions questioning Form-II issued by the 2nd respondent as such,

as rightly contended for the respondents, is rather premature.

89. Thus, it is held that these writ petitions are not maintainable.

POINT No.3:

90. The grievance of the petitioners is that the present ruling

dispensation in the State of Andhra Pradesh is bent upon harming the

interests of the 2nd petitioner, who is leader of opposition in the State.

Earlier attempt of those in governance now to take over reigns of Sangam

Milk Producers Company Limited failed on account of the interference of

this Court in W.P.No.9279 of 2021, which was confirmed in W.A.No.281 of

2021 according to the petitioners. A reference is also made to criminal

cases registered against the management of this Company.

91. On such premise, on behalf of the petitioners, Sri

B.Adinarayana Rao, learned senior counsel, contended that this is a clear

indication of malicious practices adopted by the present ruling

dispensation and being malice in law and the attempt at present is to take

over the Sangam Dairy indirectly bringing pressure on the 1st petitioner MVRJ, W.P.Nos.1470 & 1502 of 2022

trust. It is further contended that no other cause is seen in this action

against the petitioners, indirectly invoking A.P.Act 30 of 1987.

92. The learned Advocate General stoutly refuted this contention

on the premise that it is not an instance of regime revenge nor making

out malice in law. The learned Advocate General further contended that

when there is prima facie material remaining outstanding against the

petitioners for the Government to act, regime revenge as such cannot be

applied. When the activities of the petitioners are riddled with instances in

not complying with law and its requirements, it was not either

investigated or detected earlier, possibly on account of alignment of the

2nd petitioner, due to regime compatibility. For such reason, no action was

initiated against the petitioners, according to the learned Advocate

General.

93. When there is prima facie material remaining outstanding

against the petitioners, initiating action of the present nature cannot be

attempted to be shielded on the premise of the concerted action on the

part of the present ruling dispensation in the State to victimise the

petitioners, by indirect method. Therefore, this ground as sought to be

projected by the petitioner cannot afford protection for them against the

action of the official respondents under Act 30 of 1987. It cannot be an

instance that can lead to hold that an attempt is made in this fashion by

the State to get at the 1st petitioner institution to wield control over the

Sangam Milk Producers Company Limited. Thus, in the action of the 2nd

respondent against the petitioner now sought to be impugned, no mala

fides as such can be attributed. Thus, this point is held.

MVRJ, W.P.Nos.1470 & 1502 of 2022

POINT No.4:

94. The findings recorded on points 1 to 3 lead to an irresistible

conclusion that it is a misconceived attempt by the petitioners in both the

writ petitions, against the respondents without merit. These two writ

petitions are not maintainable. Therefore, they shall be dismissed.

95. In the result, both the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. It

is open for the petitioners in W.P.No.1502 of 2022 to file their objections

before the 2nd respondent within two (02) weeks from now, pursuant to

Form-II notice served on them.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

Interim Orders, if any, stand vacated.

________________________ JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA

Dt: 09.02.2022 RR