Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Donthukurthi Srikanth Sharma vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 12 January, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
AND
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
WRIT APPEAL No.36 of 2022
JUDGMENT:- (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice M.Satyanarayana Murthy)
This Writ Appeal, under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, is filed
by the appellant/writ petitioner questioning the order, dated
04.01.2022, passed in Writ Petition No.162 of 2022 where under
the appointment of respondent No.5 as a single Trustee was
suspended but allowed him to continue to discharge the functions
of an Executive Officer for the temple pending further orders.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter
referred to as arrayed before the learned single Judge.
3. The writ petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the
action of respondent No.3 in appointing respondent No.5 as single
trustee vide proceedings in Rc.No.A1/2316/2021/ADM, dated
03.01.2022, to Sri Butchi Rama Lingeswara Swamy Temple,
Official Colony, Visakhapatnam Town and District as illegal and
arbitrary.
4. Case of the writ petitioner is that initially, his grandfather
was appointed as trustee - cum - archaka to the subject temple
and during his lifetime, he served the temple and thereafter, father
of this petitioner performed archakatvam in the subject temple.
Thereafter, the petitioner has taken the charge of archakatvam in
the subject temple. Since his childhood, he used to attend to the
temple along with his father for performing archakatvam services.
Thereafter, he was paid remuneration of Rs.500/- since
01.01.2004 onwards. His archakatvam services were recognized in
the temple but he was removed from service for rendering service
in the temple by the impugned order and appointed respondent
No.5 as a single trustee to the temple. The same is questioned on
various grounds.
5. The petitioner raised several contentions and the learned
single Judge, upon hearing the argument of both the writ
petitioner and the respondents, passed the order under challenge
based on the judgment of the learned single Judge of the erstwhile
High Court of A.P. in Bulusu Kesava Rao vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh1. However, respondent No.5 was allowed to continue to
discharge the functions of an Executive Officer for the temple
pending further orders.
6. Aggrieved by the latter part of the order of the learned single
Judge, the present appeal is preferred under Clause 15 of Letters
Patent on the ground that when once respondent No.5 was
removed and whose appointment is declared as illegal and contrary
to law laid down by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Bulusu
Kesava Rao's case (cited supra), continuation to discharge the
functions of an Executive Officer is illegal and contrary and
requested to issue a direction setting aside the direction issued in
favour of respondent No.5 to continue him as an Executive Officer
of the subject temple.
7. Sri D.V.Sasidhar, learned counsel for the appellant/writ
petitioner, supported his contention whereas Sri T.N.M.Ranga Rao,
2015 (6) ALD 282
learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Rajini Reddy, learned
Government Pleader for Endowments, would contend that the
order was passed even without affording an opportunity to
respondent No.5 to make submissions by filing an appropriate
counter and therefore, the order passed by the learned single
Judge is against the principles of natural justice and the order
passed by the learned single Judge suspending the appointment of
respondent No.5 as single trustee itself is contrary to law and
requested to confirm the order passed by the learned single Judge
to the extent of continuing him to discharge the functions of an
Executive Officer for the temple pending further orders whereas
Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Endowments,
would contend that several serious allegations were made against
the appellant/writ petitioner more particularly, about
misappropriation of funds and in those circumstances, the learned
single Judge passed an order to continue to discharge the
functions of an Executive Officer for the temple and in those
circumstances, the order to the extent adverse to the
appellant/writ petitioner can't be set aside and requested to
dismiss the writ appeal.
8. The appellant/writ petitioner raised several contentions
questioning the proceedings of the learned single Judge placing
reliance on Bulusu Kesava Rao's case (cited supra) wherein it is
held that the employees of the Endowments Department cannot be
appointed as Trustees to the temple and passed order declaring the
appointment of respondent No.5 as single trustee, who is the
Executive Officer working under the Endowments Department, is
contrary to law.
9. While holding that the appointment of respondent No.5 as
single trustee is contrary to law, but allowed him to continue to
discharge the functions of an Executive Officer for the temple
pending further orders and in fact, he is not the Executive Officer
of the temple and he is the Executive Officer of Munagapaka Group
of Temples, Munagapaka Village and Mandal, Visakhapatnam
District. When once his appointment of the trustee is declared as
contrary to law, he cannot be allowed to discharge the functions of
an Executive Officer and no Executive Officer was appointed till
date to the subject temple. Therefore, the Court cannot perpetuate
an illegality keeping in view of the circumstances. However,
interests of the temple can be protected by taking immediate steps
to manage the temple since serious allegation of misappropriation
of funds is made against the writ petitioner. Hence, the order of
the learned single Judge to continue respondent No.5 to discharge
the functions of an Executive Officer for the subject temple is
hereby set aside and respondent No.3 is at liberty to take
appropriate steps for management of the temple in view of the
serious allegations subject to permissibility as per law.
10. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed setting aside the
impugned order of the learned single Judge to the extent of
continuing respondent No.5 to discharge the functions of an
Executive Officer for the subject temple There shall be no order as
to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Appeal Suit
shall stand closed.
_________________________________________
JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
____________________________________
DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
Date : 12.1.2022
AMD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
AND
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
WRIT APPEAL No.36 of 2022
Date : 12.1.2022
AMD
