Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sri Ahobila Mutt Parampara ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 13 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU
W.P.(PIL) No.231 of 2020, W.P.No.5105 of 2019
and
W.P.No.806 of 2021
COMMON ORDER: (per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)
Dt.13.10.2022
The arguments in these cases were commenced by the
learned senior counsel Sri C.R.Sridharan in W.P. (PIL) No.231
of 2020. Sri W.B.Srinivas, learned senior counsel argued on
behalf of the petitioners in other two Writ Petitions. Learned
Advocate General argued on behalf of the respondent-State.
2. W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020 is preferred by a person
claiming to be a devotee and a person interested in the
Ahobilam Math and Temple. The petitioner prays for any
writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of
a writ of quo warranto questioning the authority of the 2 nd
respondent in appointing the 3rd respondent as Executive
Officer of Sri Ahobila Mutt Parampara Aadheena Sri Lakshmi
Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam and the authority by which
2 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
the 2nd respondent has directed the 3rd respondent to change
the age-old traditional administration in the name of Srivan
Satagopa Sri to the one under the name and seal of the 3 rd
respondent and to quash the appointment order as well as
order to operate bank accounts in the name and seal of the
3rd respondent thereby restoring the tradition of
administration and operation of bank accounts by the Jeeyar
of Sri Ahobila Mutt.
3. The prayer in W.P.No.5105 of 2019 is for issuance of a
Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent
in imposing the 3rd respondent - Executive Officer in the
administration of Ahobilam Devasthanam, which is under the
management of Ahobilam Math, as unconstitutional, being
ultra vires of the Act 30 of 1987, without jurisdiction,
arbitrary, illegal and violative of the fundamental rights of the
devotees of the Ahobilam Temple.
4. The prayer in W.P.No.806 of 2021 is for issuance of a
Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent
in appointing the 3rd respondent as Executive Officer vide
proceedings Rc.No.E2/15021/202/2020 dated 30.12.2020
and imposing the administration of the 3rd respondent on
3 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
Ahobilam Devasthanam which is under the management of
Ahobilam Math.
5. It is stated in the writ affidavit in W.P. (PIL) No.231 of
2020 that Ahobilam Temple has been under the control of Sri
Ahobilam Mutt since time immemorial. The details and
history of Ahobilam Temple has been described in the
following manner:
"According to Brahmanda Purana, Ahobilam is the
place where the Lord Ahobila Narasimha Swamy killed
the demon Hiranya Kasipu and after saving Prahlada
took oath on him to live in a cave in Ahobila Kshetram
on the banks of river Bhavanashini near Gajakundam
and ordered Prahlada to stay before him."
"The Lord who saved Prahlada and took the oath on
himself to reside in a cave in Ahobilam, appeared before
Sri Kidambi Srinivasacharya, gave Sanyasa Deeksha, a
ritual that is needed to become the Jeeyar (pontiff), and
the authority to administer Ahobilam Mutt temple to
him. The Lord also handed over the idol of Lord Malola
Narasimha Swamy with Lakshmi (Utsava Moorthy) to
the Jeeyar with instructions to carry the idol with him
and spread the philosophy of Sri Vaishnavisam and do
Prapatti to his followers. Prapatti is a ritual which
would help the inner soul to render services to God
once the person leaves this material world. As the First
Jeeyar of Sri Ahobila Mutt got the Sanyasa Deeksha
4 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
and temple administration directly from the Lord, Sri
Kidambi Srinivasacharya was called by the name Sri
Narasimha Jeeyar or Srimad Azhagiyasinghar, which in
Tamil means beautiful lion. Receiving the orders of the
Lord, Sri Narasimha Jeeyar traveled from Ahobilam to
Alwar Thirunagari and installed Nammalwar Vigraham
there. For this great service, Sri Narasimha Jeeyar was
honoured with Hamsa Mudra of Nammalwar and the
title Sri Adivan Satagopa Yatheendra Mahadesikan."
"Successive Jeeyars of Sri Ahobila Mutt are the trustees
to Sri Ahobila Mutt Parampara Aadheena Sri Lakshmi
Swamy Ahobilam Devasthanam since then in
succession continuously without any disturbance from
any quarters and are administering the said temple in
the name of Nammalwar - Srivan Satagopa Sri. This
entire history has its reference in Sankeerthanas of Sri
Thallapaka Annamacharya, the disciple of Sri Adivan
Satagopa Yatheendra Mahadesikan and in
Amukthamalyada written by Sri Krishnadevaraya, the
famous Vijayanagara ruler which clearly establishes
the inseparable connection between Sri Ahobila Mutt
and Sri Ahobila Mutt Parampara Aadheena Sri Lakshmi
Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam Ahobilam.
"The rituals and worship in Sri Ahobila Mutt
Parampara Aadheena Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy
Devasthanam, Ahobilam are being done as per the
Pancharatra Agama Sastra. According to the tenets
"Mutt Sampradaya Niroopanam" in Paramapurusha
Samhitha of Sri Pancharatra Agama, Temples which
follow Mutt Sampradaya will have the Mathadhipathi of
5 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
the Mutt, as the Dharmakartha (trustee) to administer
the temple. The Dharmakartha will be the primary
Sishya of such Mutt who will be appointed following the
Guru Sishya Lineage. Hence it is very clear that Sri
Ahobila Mutt Parampara Aadheena Sri Lakshmi
Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Ahobilam is having a
best temple administrative system as per the Agama
due to the fact that the Jeeyars of Sri Ahobila Mutt are
in charge of the administration of the temple as per the
divine instructions of Lord Ahobila Narasimha. Thus it
is clearly evident that Sri Ahobila Mutt Parampara
Aadheena Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy
Devasthanam Ahobilam and institution of Sri Ahobila
Mutt are interdigitated."
6. The writ affidavit would further refer to the publications
of various Government Departments to substantiate that the
Temple Sri Ahobila Mutt Parampara Aadheena Sri Lakshmi
Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam was administered by the
successive Jeeyars of Sri Ahobila Mutt from time immemorial.
Further details and history of Ahobilam Temple has been
described in the following manner:
"The Records bearing numbers A.R.No.66 of 1915 and
A.R.No.73 of 1915 in the publication of Archeological
Survey of India, South India Inscriptions Volume XVI
published by the Director General Archeological Survey
of India in 1972, clearly states that the lands belonging
6 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
to the temple Sri Ahobila Mutt Parampara Aadheena
Sri Lakshmi Swamy Devasthanam was administered by
the Jeeyars of the Sri Ahobila Mutt and the revenues
from the said lands were also utilized as per the
instructions of the Jeeyars of the Sri Ahobila Mutt in
the name of Srivan Satagopa Sri."
"The record bearing A.R.No.70 of 1915 discloses that
the then 7th Jeeyar of Sri Ahobila Mutt had represented
to Vijayanagara King Rangaraya of Aravidu dynasty
ruling from Penugonda who sent Kondraju Vankataraju
under the instructions of the then Jeeyar to recapture
Ahobilam, from one Ibhuramu (Ibrahim Qutub Shah) of
Golkonda and others, and restore its past glory in the
year 1584 and for the assistance rendered the Jeeyar
granted the temple honours to him. The inscription
also highlights the unique Guru Sishya Lineage
(Parampara) that is followed as per the divine
instruction of Ahobila Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy. It
also states that all services to the said temple shall be
done through Sri Ahobila Mutt. This clearly proves
once again that the entire temple administration with
unfettered rights were in the hands of the Jeeyars of Sri
Ahobila Mutt."
"A manual of the Kurnool District in the Presidency of
Madras compiled by Sri Narahari Gopalakristnamah
Chetty, Deputy Collector, Pyapali, Kurnool, printed at
the Govenrment Press, Chennai in 1886, clearly
records that the administration of the temple and its
endowments are in the hands of the Jeeyar of Sri
7 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
Ahobila Mutt and they are managed by representative
appointed by the Jeeyar of Sri Ahobila Mutt."
"The temple monograph of Sri Ahobila Narasimha
Swamy Temple Ahobilam by Sri P. Sitapathi,
Commissioner of Archives, Archeology & Museums and
Oriental Manuscripts Library published by the
Director, Archeology & Museums, Government of
Andhra Pradesh in 1982, reveals that the temple at
Ahobilam continued to be under the Jeeyars of Sri
Ahobilam as on date of publication of the monograph
and that the Endowments Department of Andhra
Pradesh has not yet taken over the temple."
"A book titled "The Narayana Svami Temple at Mekote"
by one Dr. Vasantha, published by Directorate of
Archeology and Museums Mysore in the year 1991, also
affirms that the First Jeeyar being appointed as the
Pontiff of Sri Ahobila Mutt also known as Van Satagopa
Jeeyar Matha by the divine orders of Lord Narasimha
and successive Jeeyars affixing the surname Sathagopa
Jeeyar, which was given by Nammalwar."
"A report on the Inscriptions of Tirumal Tirupathi
Devasthanam collections with illustrations by the
Archeologist of the Devasthanam Sri Sadhu
Subramanya Sastry first published in 1930 and re-
printed in 1998, discloses the details about
establishment of Sri Ahobila Mutt and installation of
the idol of Nammalwar at Alwar Thirunagari and the
Jeeyars of Sri Ahobila Mutt being referred to as Van
Satagopa Jeeyar."
8 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
7. Learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner in the PIL
submits that the entire dispute centers around the power of
the State to appoint an Executive Officer for the Ahobilam
Temple. Learned senior counsel states that the State does
not have the authority to appoint the Executive Officer for the
Math or Temple as per the Endowments Act (30/87). He relies
upon Chapter V of the Act to submit that the Maths are given
a special status and the right to manage their affairs. By
appointing an Executive Officer the status and independence
of the Mathadipathi is sought to be taken away as per the
counsel. He submits that the powers of administration of the
Matahdhipathi are sought to be taken away by this action.
He submits that the Math and the Temple are in fact
inseparable and have existed as an integral unit from times
immemorial. He points out that the Temple situated in
Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh is not separate and distinct
from the Ahobilam Math, which is presently based in Tamil
Nadu. According to him both are an integrated whole.
8. He relies upon the historical/epigraphical data and also
literature like Brahmanda Purana etc., to submit that the
Lord Narasimha Swamy himself gave sanyasa deeksha to the
9 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
first Jeeyar and handed over the idol 'Utsava Murthy' and
directed him to spread the philosophy of Sri Vaishnavism
throughout the land. Learned senior counsel submits that
the current head is the 46 th Mathadipathi who has been
administering the Temple and the Math. He highlights the
fact that the Mathadhipathis have the traditional title of
"Satagopa Jeeyar".
9. He relies upon the following publications to trace the
ancestral history of the Math and the Temple:
(i) The life of the singer-saint Annamacharya published in
1949 by the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam;
(ii) A Telugu University publication which shows the
extract from the book Amuktamalyada written by Sri
Krishna Devaraya and published by Telugu University;
(iii) Translations of the South Indian inscriptions published
by Archeological Survey of India pertaining to the years
1554 A.D., etc., which shows donations to the
Ahobilam Temple by Satagopa Jeeyar, the trustee of
the Temple.
(iv) A stone inscription of 1584 which shows that the
Temple was captured by Muslim rulers of the era and
10 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
the 7 th successor of Satagopa swamy has prevailed
upon a local war guard to free the Temple;
(v) A inscription pertaining to 1564 at Dharmavaram,
wherein a reference is made to the Mathadipathi to
establish the path of Vedas and an inscription of the
year 1564 also.
10. In addition, he relies upon the Manual of the Kurnool
District in the Presidency of the Madras Province, printed in
1886 which also traces the history of this Temple. This
manual mentions that the temple is said to have been
established by Pratapa Rudra, and 'Adi Satagopa Jeeyangar'
is the priest in-charge. The successors of the Jeeyangar have
always been its warders as per this publication.
11. He also refers to a publication made by the Government
of Andhra Pradesh, which is the Temple monograph of
Ahobilam Narasimha Swamy Temple which states that the
temple continues to be under the Ahobilam Math even till
date. It is mentioned in the publication that the Endowment
Department did not take over the Temple.
11 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
12. Learned counsel also relies upon the archeological and
historical study of the Narayana Swamy Temple at Melkote,
published in the year 1981 by the Directorate of Archeology,
Mysore, which also states that the Satagopa Jeeyar is said to
have received initiation into sanyas ashram by the Lord
himself and that his successors, who were in-charge of the
Math have prefixed the surname of Satagopa Jeeyar.
13. To a similar effect is the publication of the Tirumala
Tirupati Devasthanam (TTD) in 1998 with regard to the
inscription available with the TTD. In this epigraphical report
also it is mentioned the activities of the first three jeeyars of
Ahobilam Temple.
14. Learned senior counsel traces the history of this Temple
based on this epigraphical /historic/literary reports and
argues that since time immemorial, this Temple was
administered by the Jeeyars of Ahobilam Math only and that
the Temple does not have an independent existence.
15. He also points out that in 2014, the Government of
Andhra Pradesh sought to appoint a non-hereditary Trust
Board by issuing G.O.Ms.No.346 dated 17.10.2014.
12 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
Thereafter, the same was withdrawn by passing
G.O.Ms.No.386 dated 19.11.2014, basing upon the report of
the Commissioner, Endowments Department, which stated
that there is no practice for appointment of a non-hereditary
trustee. The said letter is also referred to as an integral part
of the submission to argue that the Government itself
recognized its lack of control over the Temple and Math.
16. Mr. C.R. Sridharan, learned senior counsel refers to a
debate under calling attention motion that took place in
Legislative Assembly of Andhra Pradesh, wherein the Hon'ble
Minister for Endowments, Government of Andhra Pradesh,
admitted that Government cannot appoint Executive Officer
to Sri Ahobilam Mutt. The Hon'ble Minister, while replying to
a request to post an Executive Officer at Ahobilam Temple,
informed the house that "there is no provision for doing that.
We cannot do it. This is because there are different rules
regarding Temples and Mathams. When request was again
made to post Executive Officer at the Temple by amending the
Act, the Hon'ble Minister once again stated that "this indeed a
divine kshetra. There is no doubt about that. Unfortunately,
since 110 years, it has been under the control and
13 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
administration of the Head of the Matham. We have no
powers or authority or opportunity to post a Executive Officer
who will control the head of these Mathams."
17. Relying upon the definitions of a Math, Religious
Institution and a Temple under the 1951 Hindu Endowments
Act, learned counsel argues that the place of religious worship
appurtenant to the Math is also defined in Section 2 (10). He
cites the case law etc., to argue that "appurtenant " does not
necessarily mean contiguous or adjacent to, and that even if
Temple is situated in Andhra Pradesh and the Math is in
Tamil Nadu, still the definition is applicable. He also submits
that Sections 38 to 51 of the Act will not apply to the Math in
question and that the appointment of an Executive Officer or
any other Officer can only be in with certain limited
circumstances and on cogent grounds like mismanagement
etc. He submits that even under the present Act 30 of 1987
also the position remains the same and that the activities of
the Math cannot be interfered with except under limited
circumstances which are not at all present in this case. He
points out that no grounds like mismanagement,
renouncement of Hinduism etc., exist for the appointment of
14 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
Executive Officer. It is pointed out that the case law on the
subject, which is given as a compendium is very clear and
only under certain limited circumstances, the State can
interfere in the activities of the Math and that too for a limited
point of time for the purpose of rectifying some clear faults
like mismanagement, violation of customs etc. He points out
that this activity of the State in appointing an Executive
Officer is a direct violation of Article 26 and the rights
guaranteed therein. Learned counsel relies upon the case law
to support his submissions.
18. Sri W.B. Srinivas, learned senior counsel appearing for
the petitioners in other two writ petitions adopts the
arguments of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in
PIL. In addition, he also stresses the fact that since time
immemorial the Math has been administering the Temple and
that the Temple does not have an independent existence by
its own. It is argued that this tradition has been continued
and that 46 Mathadipathies have been appointed in
succession as per this tradition only. He also points out that
the interference by the State can only be for a limited period
and under certain limited circumstances only like proven
15 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
mismanagement etc. In the case on hand, he argues that
those circumstances do not exist. He points out that in the
Endowments Acts from 1921 till date the position has
virtually remained the same and that the Maths have been
given a special status with minimal governmental
interference. It is also submitted that only a Manager was
appointed earlier and that too with the consent of
Mathadipathi. This was also ratified by the State. However,
after a few decades the State began to call the 'Manager' as
Executive Officer. This was also protested by the
Mathadipathi. He submits that by taking advantage of this
change in the nomenclature of the Manager the State is trying
to interfere with the activities of the Math. In all other
aspects he adopts the legal and factual submission.
19. The Learned Advocate General argued the matter at
length on behalf of the respondents. He points out that the
Executive Officer has been appointed long ago in this case
and that after passage of a long period of time, the action is
being challenged. Learned Advocate General submits that the
Ahobilam Math and the Temple are separate and distinct
entities. It is pointed out that the Math is situated in the
16 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
State of Tamil Nadu, whereas the Temple is situated in
Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, the provisions of the
Endowments Act of Andhra Pradesh apply to the Temple.
Learned Advocate General draws the distinction between the
Math and the Temple and points out that the Temple is a
place of public religious worship unlike a Math which caters
to a certain group or class of people, who are engaged in
spiritual services etc. He points out that the Temple in this
case gives unrestricted access to the people and the
restrictions which are placed under the Act with regard to
Math are not applicable to the temple. The Temple as per the
learned Advocate General is very distinct and different from
the Math. Therefore, he submits that the provisions of the
Act are squarely applicable and that respondent-State has
authority to appoint an Executive Officer for the temple.
Learned Advocate General also points out that as the income
of the Temple crossed the fixed statutory limits, appropriate
notification was also issued under Section 6 of the
Endowments Act from 1987 itself and subsequently
reclassified basing upon the income and other data of the
Temple. He submits therefore that the action of the State
17 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
cannot be faulted. He relies upon an earlier scheme
formulated in 1946 and states that although it was not
recorded as a decree it was acted upon and the Manager/EO
was appointed pursuant thereto. He relies upon case law and
a note submitted to support his submission. He therefore
justifies the action of the State and prays that the writs must
be dismissed.
COURT:
20. A primary question to be decided in order to resolve the
controversy between the petitioners and the respondents is -
whether Ahobilam Temple is a part and parcel of the
Ahobilam Math. This is therefore taken up for consideration
at the outset.
21. The facts which are not in dispute are that the Ahobilam
Math is based in Tamil Nadu, whereas the Ahobilam Temples
are located in Kurnool District of the State of Andhra Pradesh.
22. The main contention of the petitioners is that
considering the history, tradition, practices etc., of this
particular Temple and the Math - the Temple and the Math
are inseparable. The respondents on the other hand state
18 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
that the Math and the Temple are separate and distinct
entities which are located in two different States.
Epigraphic Material, Historical Literature, Government
Publications etc :
23. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners
highlights the fact that the 46th Pontiff or Matadipathi is
currently the head of the institution and that since times
immemorial, the Pontiff also known by his title "Satagopa
Yatindra/Satagopa Jeeyar", has been the head of the Temple
and the Math. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners
argued the fact that the first Jeeyar of the Temple Sri Adivan
Satagopa Yatheendra Maha Desikan was given sanyas and a
"utsava vigraham" of the Lord by the Lord Narasimha and
asked to propagate the philosophy of Srivaishnavism.
Learned senior counsel states that since then, for more than
600 years, the Jeeyar/Pontiff has been administering the
Temple and the Math. Learned senior counsel also submits
that neither the authenticity nor the contents of the
documents, photographs, epigraphs etc., which have been
described with clarity in the writ affidavit were ever denied by
the respondents. He argues that as the same are not denied-
19 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
they are deemed to have been accepted. Emphasis is laid on
them and arguments are presented on the basis of these
documents. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon a
publication of 1949 on the life of the singer-saint Sri
Annamacharya, which describes that the Lord himself gave
'Kashayam' (saffron robes), 'Tridandam' (three sticks) and
'Mantras' as a Guru to a Satagopa Muni, who is otherwise
known as Sri Adivan Sataagopa Yatheendra Maha Desikan-
founder of Ahobilam. He relies upon a copy of the publication
made by the Telugu University, Hyderabad of the famous
work Aamukthamalyada written by Srikrishna Devaraya,
wherein also it is stated that Lord Narasimha gave robes of
Sanyas to Satagopa Muni and that Swami Ramanuja was
reborn in the hills to perpetuate his lineage. This book also
describes that the successors of Satagopa Muni are teaching
Bhakthi to his followers through the Math. Learned counsel
also relies upon the translation of South Indian inscription of
Vijayanagar Dynasty published by the Archeological Survey of
India, which is found in a slab of the Temple relating to 1554
AD. This talks of a grove and garden belonging to the god
Ahobaleswara by Satagopa Jeeyar, the trustee of the Temple
20 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
and others. He also relies upon an inscription of a slab which
is found in the Temple relating to the year 1584, which details
the fact that the Ahobilam Temple was captured by Hande
Chief, who held it for five to six years. At the request of the
7th successor, Adi Van Satagopa Swami, the ruler called
Rangaraya directed one Kondraju Venkataraju to wage a war.
He accordingly defeated the Hande and placed the idol back
in the shrine. Similarly, he points out that in the nearby
Tenali, a stone inscription was found pertaining to the year
1564 AD. It describes the grant of a village Lingamdina to
lord Narasimha. It also mentions the fact that Sri Parankusa
Sri Van Satagopan is the one who established the path of the
Vedas.
24. Relying upon a publication called the Manual of the
Kurnool District in the Presidency of Madras, which was
published in 1886 by B.Hill, Government Press, learned
senior counsel points out that Ahobilam in Kurnool is the
most sacred Vishnu Temple. The shrine is believed to be
established by Pratapa Rudra and Adi Satagopa Jeeyangar is
the priest in-charge. He further states that his successor
known as Ahobilam priests have always been its warders and
21 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
that the present warder resides in Tiruvallur. Learned
counsel also relied upon a further publication made by the
Director of Archeology and Museums, Government of Andhra
Pradesh 1982, which is a Temple Monograph. This also
clearly states that the Ahobilam Temple continues to be under
the Jeeyars of Ahobilam even as on date (1982). Similarly, a
publication of the Directorate of Archeology and Museums
(1991) of the Narasimha at Melkote also mentions that the
one Satagopa Jeeyar Matham (Ahobalam Matham) is the
founder of the Matham. It mentions a passage in the famous
work Amuktamalyada by Krishna Devaraya which states that
the Satagopa Jeeyar carried out vigorous propaganda to
establish Sri Vaishnava faith in Andhra. It is also mentioned
that the Pontiffs are the Mathadhipathies and bear the
surname 'satagopa jeeyar'. Learned senior counsel also relies
upon a report published in 1998 on the inscriptions of the
TTD epigraphical series. There is reference to a Sannidi Guru
parampara, a work in Tamil dealing with lives of the first
three heads of the Ahobilam Math. It is mentioned in this
work also that the first head was initiated into Sanyas by the
Lord himself and later he continued his journeys. The further
22 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
religious activities of the other successors are also described
with great clarity. The fact that the Ahobilam Math has been
established by one Satagopa Jeeyar is also mentioned here.
The activities of the said Jeeyar are described with clarity.
25. Relying on these historical/archeological material,
learned senior counsels argue that from time immemorial, the
Jeeyars of the Ahobilam are spreading Srivaishnavism, are
followers of Sri Ramanujam and are a denominational sect.
This Court also agrees with the submission of the learned
senior counsels, that none of these epigraphical, historical or
other data has actually been controverted or refuted by the
State. No material is filed to contradict these facts. These
are also specifically pleaded in the Public Interest Litigation
but the contents of the same have also not been denied at all
It is also pertinent to note that almost all the publications are
of the State or its departments only and are thus
data/documents from official sources only.
26. The issue as to whether Gazetteers, travelogue books
and other historical documents can be treated as evidence by
the Court has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in a catena of judgments with reference to sub-section (1) and
23 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
sub-section (2) of Section 3 and Section 57 of the Indian
Evidence Act. In Sukhdev Singh v. Maharaja Bahadur of
Gidhaur, reported in AIR 1951 SC 288, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that the statement in the Gazetteer is not
necessarily conclusive, but the Gazetteer is an official
document of some value, as it is compiled by experienced
officials with great care after obtaining the facts from official
records. In Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mohd. Jaffar
Mahomed Hussein, reported in AIR 1954 SC 5, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court referred and relied on the Gazetteer of
Bombay to observe thus in paragraph 4:
"4. The shrine has a curious, and in some respects
legendary, history. Its origin is lost in antiquity but the
Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency tells us that the
tomb is that of a Muslim saint who came to India as an
Arab missionary in the thirteenth century. His fame
was still at its height when the English made their
appearance at Kalyan, near where the tomb is situated
in the year 1780. As they only stayed for two years,
their departure in the year 1782 was ascribed to the
power of the dead saint."
24 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
27. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bala Shankar Maha
Shanker Bhattjee v. Charity Commr., reported in 1995
Supp (1) SCC 485, held thus in paragraph 22:
"22. ... It is seen that the Gazette of the Bombay
Presidency, Vol. III published in 1879 is admissible
under Section 35 read with Section 81 of the Evidence
Act, 1872. The Gazette is admissible being official
record evidencing public affairs and the court may
presume their contents as genuine. The statement
contained therein can be taken into account to discover
the historical material contained therein and the facts
stated therein is evidence under Section 45 and the
court may in conjunction with other evidence and
circumstance take into consideration in adjudging the
dispute in question, though may not be treated as
conclusive evidence. The recitals in the Gazette do
establish that Kalika Mataji is on the top of the hill,
Mahakali Temple and Bachra Mataji on the right and
left to the Kalika Mataji. During Mughal rule another
Syed Sadar Peer was also installed there, but Kalika
Mataji was the chief temple. Hollies and Bills are the
main worshippers. On full moon of Chaitra (April) and
Dussehra (in the month of October), large number of
Hindus of all classes gather there and worship Kalika
Mataji, Mahakali, etc."
(emphasis supplied)
28. In an earlier Constitution Bench judgment rendered by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Srinivas Ramanuj Das v.
25 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
Surjanarayan Das, reported in AIR 1967 SC 256, the
Supreme Court refused to accept the argument that Gazetteer
cannot be treated as evidence. It was observed thus in
paragraph 25:
"25. It is urged for the appellant that what is stated in
the Gazetteer cannot be treated as evidence. These
statements in the Gazetteer are not relied on as
evidence of title but as providing historical material and
the practice followed by the Math and its head. The
Gazetteer can be consulted on matters of public
history."
29. Similarly in M.Siddiqui (dead) through Legal
representatives (RAM JANMABHOOMI TEMPLE CASE) v.
Mahant Suresh Das and others, reported in (2020) 1 SCC
1, in para 1331, the abovementioned judgment in Srinivas
Ramanuj Das was cited in para 1328. Section 57 of the
Evidence Act was relied on to hold that in matters of public
history, literature etc., the Court may rely upon appropriate
books or documents. In para 1333, Section 81 of the
Evidence Act was relied upon. In paras 862 and 863 the
following judgments were cited with approval:
"862. In Muttu Ramalinga Setupati v. Perianayagum
Pillai [Muttu Ramalinga Setupati v. Perianayagum
26 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
Pillai, 1874 SCC OnLine PC 8 : (1873-74) 1 IA 209] ,
the Privy Council dealt with an objection to the
judgment of the High Court on the ground that
excessive weight had been given to the reports of
Collectors. In that context, the Privy Council held :
(SCC OnLine PC)
"Their Lordships think it must be conceded that
when these reports express opinions on the private
rights of parties, such opinions are not to be regarded
as having judicial authority or force. But being the
reports of public officers made in the course of duty,
and under statutable authority, they are entitled to
great consideration so far as they supply information of
official proceedings and historical facts, and also
insofar as they are relevant to explain the conduct and
acts of the parties in relation to them, and the
proceedings of the Government founded upon them."
(emphasis supplied)
The Privy Council cautioned against the use of
the report of the Collector when it opined on matters
relating to private rights. But as records of official
proceedings or historical facts, and to explain the
conduct of parties in relation to them, they would
provide useful material.
863. In Ghulam Rasul Khan v. Secy. of State for
India in Council [Ghulam Rasul Khan v. Secy. of State
for India in Council, 1925 SCC OnLine PC 12 : (1924-
25) 52 IA 201] , the Privy Council held : (SCC OnLine
PC)
"... statements in public documents are
receivable to prove the facts stated on the general
27 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
grounds that they were made by the authorized agents
of the public in the course of official duty and
respecting facts which were of public interest or
required to be recorded for the benefit of the
community: Taylor's Law of Evidence, 10th Edn., S.
1591). In many cases, indeed, in nearly all cases, after
a lapse of years it would be impossible to give evidence
that the statements contained in such documents were
in fact true, and it is for this reason that such an
exception is made to the rule of hearsay evidence."
(emphasis supplied)
30. In M. Siddiqui (supra), the Supreme Court concluded
the issue in respect of admissibility of Gazetteer by
observing thus in paragraph 1333:
"1333. In view of the above discussions, the law as
noted above clearly establishes that the court can take
into consideration the gazetteers under the Evidence
Act, 1872, even though, the statement in gazetteers will
not be treated as conclusive evidence but the
presumption of correctness of that statement is
attached to it. The admissibility of books and
travelogues cannot be denied in view of Section 57.
Section 81 of the Evidence Act also contemplates for a
presumption of genuineness of every document
purporting to be any Official Gazette or the Government
Gazette. Section 81 of the Evidence Act is as follows:
28 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
"81. Presumption as to Gazettes, newspapers, private
Acts of Parliament and other documents.--The Court
shall presume the genuineness of every document
purporting to be the London Gazette, or any Official
Gazette, or the Government Gazette of any colony,
dependency of possession of the British Crown, or to be
a newspaper or journal, or to be a copy of a private Act
of Parliament of the United Kingdom printed by the
Queen's Printer, and of every document purporting to
be a document directed by any law to be kept by any
person, if such document is kept substantially in the
form required by law and is produced from proper
custody." (emphasis supplied)
31. In the light of the uncontroverted details and the case
law this Court has to hold that the books, literature and
archeological data does support the case of the petitioners
that the temple and math were founded and administered by
the Mathadipathis since times immemorial.
Math and Temple:
32. The crux of the legal submissions made by the learned
Advocate General for the State is that Math and Temple are
distinct and separate whereas the petitioners argue that both
are an integral whole and not separate. The Ld Advocate
General has relied upon the definitions of the terms 'Math'
29 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
and Temple in the 1927 Act, 1951 Act, 1959 Act, 1966 Act
and the 1987 Act which are as follows.
MATH TEMPLE
1927 Act Sec.9(7) Sec. (12) :-
"Math" means an institutions "Temple" means a place, by
for the promotions of the whatever designation known,
Hindu Religion presided over used as a place of public
by a person whose duty is to religious worship and
engage himself in spiritual dedicated to, or for the benefit
service or who exercises or of, or used as of right by, the
claims to exercise spiritual Hindu community, or any
headship over a body of section thereof, as a place of
disciples and succession and religious worship.
whose office devolves in
accordance with the
directions of the founder of
the institution or is regulated
by usage, and includes
places of religious worship
other than temple or places
of religious institutions which
are appurtenant to such
institution.
1951 Act Sec. 6(10):- Sec. 6(17):-
"Math" means a Hindu "Temple" means a place, by
religious institution with whatever designation known,
properties attached there to used as a place of public
presided over by a person religious worship and
whose duty it is to engage dedicated to, or for the benefit
himself in imparting religious of, or used as of right by, the
institution or rendering Hindu community, or any
spiritual service to a body of section thereof, as a place of
disciples or who exercises or public religious worship.
claims to exercise spiritual
headship over such a body,
and includes places of
religious worship or
instruction with are
appurtenant to the
institution.
30 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
1959 Act Sec.6(13):- Sec.6(20):-
"Math" means a Hindu "Temple" means a place, by
religious institution with whatever designation known,
properties attached there to use as a place of public
and presided over by a religious worship and
person, the succession to dedicated to, or for the benefit
whose office devolves in of, or used as a right by, the
accordance with direction of Hindu community, or of any
the founder of the institution section thereof as a place of
or is regulated by usage and religious worship.
:-
(i) whose duty it is to engage
himself in imparting religious
instruction or rendering
spiritual service, or
(ii) whose exercises or claims
to exercise spiritual headship
over a body of disciples,
and include places of
religious worship or
instruction which are
appurtenant to institution.
1966 Act Sec.2(17):- Sec.2(26):-
"Math" means a Hindu "Temple" means a place, by
religious institution presided whatever designation known,
over by a person, whose used as a place of public
principle duty is to engage religious worship, and
himself in the teaching and dedicated to, or for the benefit
propagation of Hindu of, or used as of right by, the
religious and philosophy or Hindu community or of any
section thereof, as a place of
the teachings and philosophy
public religious worship and
of the denomination, sect or
includes sub-shrines utsava
sampradaya to which the
Mantapas, tanks and other
Math belongs and in
necessary appurtenant
imparting religious institution
structures and land.
and training and rendering
spiritual service or who
exercises or claims to exercise
or claims to exercise spiritual
headship over a body of
disciples and includes place
or places of religious
worship, instruction or
training which are
appurtenant to the
institution.
31 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
1987 Act Sec.2(17):- as above Sec.2(27): 'Temple' means a
place by whatever designation
known used as a place of
public religious worship, and
dedicated to, or for the benefit
of, or used as of right by the
Hindu community or any section
thereof, as place of public
religious worship, and
dedicated to, or for the benefit
of, or used as of right by the
Hindu community or any section
thereof, as a place of public
religious worship and includes
sub-shrines, utsava mandapas,
tanks and other necessary
appurtenant structures and
land;
Explanation :- A place of
worship where the public or a
section thereof have
unrestricted access or
declared as a private place of
worship by court or other
authority but notwithstanding
any such declaration, public or
a section thereof has
unrestricted access to such
place and includes a temple
which is maintained within
the residential premises, if
offerings or gifts are received
by the person managing the
temple from the public or a
section thereof at the time of
worship or other religious
function shall be deemed to be
a temple.
33. Learned Advocate General therefore argues that a
Temple is a place which is used for "public" religious worship
whereas, a 'Math' is meant for promotion and propagation of
the denomination sect or Sampradaya to which the Math
32 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
belongs and includes places of religious worship. Therefore,
he maintains that there is a distinction between a Math and a
Temple right from 1927 till date. He also argues that the
Ahobilam Math being headquartered in the State of Madras
cannot contend that the Temple in the State of Andhra
Pradesh administered by the Math is exempted from the
provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Act. He states that the
temple at Kurnool has unrestricted access to the public and
hence the State was justified in appointing an Executive
officer for the temple.
34. In reply to this, both the Learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioners argue that if the definition of a Math is taken from
1951 (as applicable after the formation of the State of Andhra
Pradesh), it also includes places of religious worship
'appurtenant' to the institution. They argue that the entire
scheme of the Act is to be seen and all the provisions are read
in conjunction and the mere fact that public access is
highlighted in the definition of a Temple it will not take away
the applicability of the other provisions of the Act. Both the
learned senior counsel argued that appurtenant does not
necessarily mean "adjacent" or "right next door". According
33 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
to the learned counsels, the interpretation should be based
upon the context also.
35. The Court notices that at one point of time, both the
Ahobilam Math and the Ahobilam Temple were in the
composite State of Madras. The historical epigraphical and
literary works of the contemporaneous period show that the
Temple was started and administered by the Pontiffs. This
fact cannot be lost sight of. It is also important to note that
the 'Math' which is now situated in Tamil Nadu is also called
the Ahobilam Math and is named after the Temple itself
which is in Kurnool District of Andhra Pradesh. It
administers many temples throughout India under the name
of 'Ahobila Math' only.
36. In addition to this, we find sufficient strength in the
legal position cited by the learned senior counsel in respect of
the definition and import of the word "appurtenant". The
definition of the word "appurtenant" from the Concise Oxford
English Dictionary is "accessory", "associated with a
particular activity".
34 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
37. In an earlier decision in Budhi Mal v. Bhati, reported
in AIR 1915 All 459 (1), the Allahabad High Court
understood the word "appurtenant" as an appendage, or
adjunct, or something belonging to another thing which is the
principal matter. Quoting from Abbot's Law Dictionary,
Ramanatha Iyer in his treatise on The Law Lexicon of British
India has extracted the following meaning to the word
"appurtenant":
"... belonging to another thing as principal, as hamlet
to another village, garden to a home; that which passes
as incident to the principal thing, a thing used with
and related to or dependent upon another thing more
worthy and agreeing in its nature and quality with the
thing whereunto it is appendant or appurtenant; that
which belongs to something else, an adjunct, an
appendage."
38. In Maharaj Singh v. State of U.P., reported in (1977)
1 SCC 155, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "what
is integral is not necessarily appurtenant. A position of
subordination, something incidental or ancillary or dependent
is implied in appurtenance."
39. The judgment in Maharaj Singh (supra) has been
approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its later decision
35 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
in the matter of K. Bhagirathi G. Shenoy and others v.
K.P. Ballakuraya and another, reported in (1999) 4 SCC
135.
40. In Special Manager, Court of Wards, Balrampur
Estate and another v. Shyam Lal, reported in AIR 1936
Oudh 324, a learned single Judge of High Court of Oudh
held that the land appurtenant to a residential house need
not be an adjoining house.
41. The Gujarat High Court in the case of Kamalabehn
Naginbhai Patel and others v. Bulchand Narumal and
others, reported in 1993 SCC Online Gujarat 69, in para
11, held that the word has diverse meanings depending upon
the context in which it is used. It is a term of variable import,
scope and ambit. Therefore, it is clear that the context in
which the places of religious worship are described as
'appurtenant' to the institution is also important. The mere
fact that there is no physical proximity is unimportant if there
is spiritual/religious or denominational oneness. Even if the
Math and Temple are geographically apart if there is oneness
or uniformity in the sampradaya, the practices, rituals etc.,
the temple must be held to be appurtenant to the Math.
36 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
Admittedly, the followers of this Math have been propagating
Srivaishnavism. Historically recorded data shows that they
have been moving around popularizing their concept of
Hinduism in the form of Vaishnavism. Data filed in the Court
shows that the Jeeyar always moves around spreading his
tenets. No material is filed to show that the traditions and
sampradaya of the Math and the Temple are different.
Establishment of temple is also an integral part of
propagation of Hindu religion and rendering spiritual service.
42. In the 1927 Act, a 'Math' has been defined as mentioned
earlier and includes places of worship other than a Temple.
But in the 1951 Act, these words 'other than Temple' have
been deleted and therefore, a 'Math' starting from 1951 Act
includes places of religious worship which are "appurtenant
to the institution". The definition of a Temple has by and
large remained unchanged. Therefore, after examining the
historical, epigraphic and other data including the purpose
for which this Math has been established, it cannot be said
that merely because the Temple is located in the current State
of Andhra Pradesh and the Math is located in the current
37 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
State of Tamil Nadu it does not cease to be a place of religious
worship pertaining to the main Math.
43. It is also clear from the record that the State has not
stated that the religious practices, Sampradaya etc., being
followed in the Math and the Temple are totally different. In
the absence of any such material to show that the same
Sampradaya or practices are not being followed in the Math
and Temple, this Court has to hold that the Temple in the
State of Andhra Pradesh is an integral part and parcel of this
Math. It is reiterated that no material is placed to show that
the activities, traditions, practices, sampradaya of the temple
are different from the Math. Hence in the present context this
Court has to hold that the word "appurtenant" does not
necessarily mean adjacent to/or next door etc and can
include an institution that is geographically far but is
spiritually identical or close.
44. These conclusions are also supported by the other
documents which are relied upon by the learned senior
counsel including the fact that by G.O.Ms.No.346 dated
17.10.2014, the State Government has attempted to
constitute Non-Hereditary Trust Board for 47 temples
38 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
including the Ahobilam Temple. The Commissioner of
Endowments had by her letter dated 30.10.2014 informed the
Government/Commissioner that there is no tradition to
constitute a Non-Hereditary Trust Board to the said Temple.
This reaction of the Commissioner, Endowments Department
was in reply to the representation dated 22.10.2014 by the
Principal Secretary to the Jeeyar of the Ahobilam Math. In
this representation dated 22.10.2014, it is clearly asserted
that Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Ahobilam is the
principal seat of the Ahobilam Math which is a
denominational institution and has been administered by the
'Mathadhipathi' for several centuries. Relying upon the
traditions etc., the Mathadhipathi/Jeeyar requested the
Government to rectify the error in the G.O. by deleting the
Ahobilam Temple from the list. The Commissioner clearly
mentioned in this letter that the Executive Officer appointed
by the Department is looking after the day to day affairs of the
Temple as per the wish of the Mathadhipathi. It is also
clarified by the Commissioner that the 'Math' and the Temple
are inseparable. The Commissioner therefore requested the
Government to delete Ahobilam Temple from the list of 47
39 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
Temples. This was acted upon and the said G.O.Ms.No.386
dated 19.11.2014 was kept in abeyance as far as this Temple
is concerned. It is very clearly stated that the Government
after careful examination of the matter has decided to
withdraw the Government Order. This is a factor which is in
favor of the petitioners. Nothing to the contrary has also been
pointed out. Therefore, from the available material including
the stand taken by the Government earlier, this Court has to
conclude that in the particular facts and circumstances of
this case, the 'Math' and the Temple are one and the same
and are not separate/distinct entities.
Appointment of Manager/Executive Officer:
45. The contention of the petitioners is that by a clandestine
method, the Manager of a Temple who was appointed by the
Mathadhipathi himself was designated as an Executive
Officer. Relying upon the provisions of the Act and the case
law, learned counsel argued that as a Math is different from a
Temple, the State cannot interfere in its activities and that it
would be violative of the Constitutional guarantee under
Article 26. In the alternative, it is submitted that State
interference can only be permissible on certain limited
40 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
grounds like mismanagement etc., and for a short period of
time to rectify the defects. Petitioners rely upon following
case law in support of their contention:
(1) Commissioner., Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri
Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (AIR
1954 SC 282)
(2) Sri Sri Sri Lakshamana Yatendrulu v. State of A.P.
[(1996) 8 SCC 705]
(3) Subramanian Swamy v. State of T.N. [2014 (5) SCC 75]
46. The respondents on the other hand argue that under
the Act, the State can have a right to control the secular
activities and that since 1961, the Executive Officer has
always been appointed for the Temple only. It is clarified
that this Executive Officer was looking after the affairs of the
Temple only and not the 'Math'. Therefore, the petitioners
cannot raise an issue about the appointment of an Executive
Officer.
47. The examination of the applicable Acts starting from
1927 Act shows that the Ahobilam Temple fell within the
definition of an excepted Temple under section 7(5) of the Act
since it was established before 1801 and since 1863 it
continued to be under the management of a Jeeyar whose
41 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
nomination did not vest in nor was exercised by the
Government. Section 37 of the Act also clearly stated that a
committee constituted under the provisions of the Act cannot
exercise jurisdiction over 'Maths' or excepted Temples.
Therefore, admittedly, under the 1927 Act, no control was
exercised. A reading of section 62 of Chapter VI of the 1927
Act shows that if the affairs of a Math or an excepted Temple
have been mismanaged, the Board was given certain power of
interference and to frame a scheme of administration.
Admittedly, the Ahobilam Temple is not an 'excepted Temple'.
48. After the State of Andhra Pradesh was formed, the
Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 was passed. Section 2(10)
of the Act defines a 'Math'. Section 2(15) defines a religious
institution as including a Math. Under this Act, as per Sec 56
if the Commissioner has any reason to believe that the
property or funds of a Math are mismanaged etc., and he is
satisfied that it is necessary in the interest of administration
to take action, then he can request the trustee to appoint a
competent person as Manager. In default, the Commissioner
may himself appoint a Manager. Under section 58, the
42 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
Deputy Commissioner can frame a scheme for the institution
after consulting the trustees, persons having interest and also
the area committee. If after the satisfaction, he feels it
necessary and desirable, he shall frame a scheme. This
scheme can provide for appointment of a paid Executive
Officer (Section 58(2) (d)). Section 63 also enables the
Commissioner to notify an institution, if he believes that such
a religious institution is being mismanaged and it is
necessary to take certain steps. After the institution is
notified, the Commissioner can appoint a salaried Executive
Officer (section 66).
49. Similarly, under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and
Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 also,
section 2(17) defines a 'Math' and 2(22) defines a 'religious
institution', which includes a Math. Section 27 deals with the
power of the Government to appoint Executive Officer for
religious institutions. However, Chapter V deals with Maths
and specified endowments.. Section 43 of Chapter V makes it
very clear that the provisions of various sections including
section 27 shall not apply to a 'Math'. Equally important is
section 102 of this Act. As per section 102(b) nothing in the
43 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
Act shall authorize any interference with the religious or
spiritual functions of the head of the 'Math'.
50. Lastly, we shall consider the provisions of the Act 30 of
1987-Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious
Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. Section 2(17)
defines a 'Math', 2(23) defines a 'religious institution'
including a Math also. Section 6 of the Act talks of
preparation and publication of a list of charitable and
religious institutions and endowments on the basis of the
income. Section 6(a) deals with institutions whose income
exceeds 25 lakhs, but excludes 'Maths'. Section 6(b) also
deals with institutions whose income exceeds 2 lakhs, but
does not exceed 25 lakhs, but it does not include a 'Math'.
Section 6(c) deals with a list of religious institutions other
than Maths. Section 6(d) talks of Maths, which are listed
irrespective of the income.
51. In the case on hand, it is stated that the Ahobilam
temple is a 6 (c) institution. However, as per section 29 of the
Act, it is clearly stated that it is not necessary to appoint an
Executive Officer for an institution included in the 6 (c) list.
Chapter V of the Act deals with Maths in specific
44 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
endowments. It is made very clear that section 48 of the Act
states that certain sections under Chapter III will not apply to
'Maths'.
52. As far as removal of Mathadipathis is concerned, it is
the Dharmika Parishad that is now given the power to remove
the Mathadipathi on certain specific grounds which are
mentioned in section 51. The said order can only be passed
after a notice is given and after the evidence is considered.
However, in case of a 'Math', whose annual income exceeds
one lakh, the order of removal of a Mathadipathi cannot take
effect unless it is confirmed by the Government. This is
clarified in the proviso to section 51(2). This Dharmika
Parishad should consist of members who are specified in
section152. These include very high Officers of the
Government, Mathadipathies, retired Judge of a High Court, a
legal luminary, two prominent philanthropists, one chartered
accountant etc. All these provisions are being set out in
detail in order to highlight the fact that the affairs of the Math
should be sparingly interfered and only on certain grounds
which are also considered in the leading judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
45 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
53. One of us while sitting singly also had an opportunity to
consider a similar issue and the judgment is reported in
Raghavendra Swamy Math v. State of Andhra Pradesh,
reported in 2021 (6) ALD 576.
54. It is also noticed in the said case on the basis of the
earlier law on the subject that the State cannot claim any
power or authority to take over the management of the Math
by spreading religious scheme, functions of the 'Math'. It was
held that only in cases of mismanagement, misconduct etc.,
the Court has the power to initiate action under section 51 of
the Act. Both the judgment of H.H.Arjun Doss Mahant v.
The Commissioner of Endowments, Endowments
Department, reported in 2006 (3) ALD 22 and the judgment
authored by one of us continue to be good law. No judgment
of the Division Bench or of a Supreme Court was brought to
our notice overruling these orders.
55. The legal position mentioned above is also supported by
the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following
cases and the relevant portions of which are reproduced
hereunder:
46 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri
Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt
(supra).
"12. There is no reason why the word "property", as
used in Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution, should not
be given a liberal and wide connotation and should not
be extended to those well recognised types of interest
which have the insignia or characteristics of proprietary
right. As said above, the ingredients of both office and
property, of duties and personal interest are blended
together in the rights of a Mahant and the Mahant has
the right to enjoy this property or beneficial interest so
long as he is entitled to hold his office. To take away
this beneficial interest and leave him merely to the
discharge of his duties would be to destroy his
character as a Mahant altogether. It is true that the
beneficial interest which he enjoys is appurtenant to
his duties and as he is in charge of a public institution,
reasonable restrictions can always be placed upon his
rights in the interest of the public. But the restrictions
would cease to be reasonable if they are calculated to
make him unfit to discharge the duties which he is
called upon to discharge. A Mahant's duty is not simply
to manage the temporalities of a Math. He is the head
and superior of spiritual fraternity and the purpose of
Math is to encourage and foster spiritual training by
maintenance of a competent line of teachers who could
impart religious instructions to the disciples and
followers of the Math and try to strengthen the
47 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
doctrines of the particular school or order, of which
they profess to be adherents. This purpose cannot be
served if the restrictions are such as would bring the
Mathadhipati down to the level of a servant under a
State department. It is from this standpoint that the
reasonableness of the restrictions should be judged."
"23. It is to be noted that both in the American as well
as in the Australian Constitution the right to freedom of
religion has been declared in unrestricted terms
without any limitation whatsoever. Limitations,
therefore, have been introduced by courts of law in
these countries on grounds of morality, order and
social protection. An adjustment of the competing
demands of the interests of Government and
constitutional liberties is always a delicate and a
difficult task and that is why we find difference of
judicial opinion to such an extent in cases decided by
the American courts where questions of religious
freedom were involved. Our Constitution makers,
however, have embodied the limitations which have
been evolved by judicial pronouncements in America or
Australia in the Constitution itself and the language of
Articles 25 and 26 is sufficiently clear to enable us to
determine without the aid of foreign authorities as to
what matters come within the purview of religion and
what do not. As we have already indicated, freedom of
religion in our Constitution is not confined to religious
beliefs only; it extends to religious practices as well
subject to the restrictions which the Constitution itself
has laid down. Under Article 26(b), therefore, a
48 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
religious denomination or organization enjoys complete
autonomy in the matter of deciding as to what rites and
ceremonies are essential according to the tenets of the
religion they hold and no outside authority has any
jurisdiction to interfere with their decision in such
matters. Of course, the scale of expenses to be incurred
in connection with these religious observances would
be a matter of administration of property belonging to
the religious denomination and can be controlled by
secular authorities in accordance with any law laid
down by a competent legislature; for it could not be the
injunction of any religion to destroy the institution and
its endowments by incurring wasteful expenditure on
rites and ceremonies. It should be noticed, however,
that under Article 26(d), it is the fundamental right of a
religious denomination or its representative to
administer its properties in accordance with law; and
the law, therefore, must leave the right of
administration to the religious denomination itself
subject to such restrictions and regulations as it might
choose to impose. A law which takes away the right of
administration from the hands of a religious
denomination altogether and vests it in any other
authority would amount to a violation of the right
guaranteed under clause (d) of Article 26." (emphasis supplied)
"26. Section 20 of the Act describes the powers of the
Commissioner in respect to religious endowments and
they include power to pass any orders that may be
deemed necessary to ensure that such endowments are
properly administered and that their income is duly
49 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
appropriated for the purposes for which they were
founded. Having regard to the fact that the
Mathadhipati occupies the position of a trustee with
regard to the Math, which is a public institution, some
amount of control or supervision over the due
administration of the endowments and due
appropriation of their funds is certainly necessary in
the interest of the public and we do not think that the
provision of this section by itself offends any
fundamental right of the Mahant. We do not agree with
the High Court that the result of this provision would
be to reduce the Mahant to the position of a servant. No
doubt the Commissioner is invested with powers to
pass orders, but orders can be passed only for the
purposes specified in the section and not for
interference with the rights of the Mahant as are
sanctioned by usage or for lowering his position as the
spiritual head of the institution. The saving provision
contained in Section 91 of the Act makes the position
quite clear. An apprehension that the powers conferred
by this section may be abused in individual cases does
not make the provision itself bad or invalid in law."
Sri Sri Sri Lakshamana Yatendrulu v. State of A.P.
(supra),
"33. The power of the Commissioner to frame a scheme
under Section 55 of the Act is not absolute but is
conditioned upon reasonable belief on the basis of the
report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner or the
50 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction over the
math or suo motu; but in later event he should have
material on record for entertaining a reasonable belief
that the affairs of the math and its properties are being
mismanaged or that funds are misappropriated or that
the mathadhipathi grossly neglected in performing his
duties. Prior enquiry in that behalf is duly made in
accordance with the Rules prescribed thereunder. The
enquiry would include an opportunity to the
mathadhipathi to satisfy the Commissioner that the
report or the material, the foundation for the formation
of adverse opinion against the Mahant, is not well-
founded or does not exist. After holding such an
enquiry and recording the finding in that behalf as is
implied in sub-section (1), the Commissioner is
required to frame a scheme to administer and manage
the properties attached to the math or specific
endowment. In the scheme so framed, he is required (a)
to appoint an executive officer for day-to-day
administration of the properties; and (b) to constitute a
committee consisting of not more than five persons for
the purpose of assisting him in the administration of
the math as a whole or any part of the administration
of all the endowments of such math or specific
endowments. Under the proviso to sub-section (2)(b)
"the members of such committee so chosen shall be
among the persons having interest in such math or
endowment". In other words, the members of the
committee will be persons who are genuinely interested
in the proper management of the math, management of
the properties and useful utilisation of the funds for the
51 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
purpose for which the math or specific endowment is
created. The paramount consideration is only proper
management of the math and utilisation of the funds
for the purpose of the math as per its customs, usage,
Sampradayams and philosophy and not the self-benefit
of persons intervening in the management of the math.
"34. It would appear that the executive officer
appointed should be in charge of day-to-day
management of the math or the specific endowment
attached to the math and the committee constituted
would be of supervisory mechanism as overall in-
charge of the math. Until the scheme is so framed, by
operation of sub-section (3), the Commissioner may
appoint a fit person to manage the properties of the
math and its endowments. After consulting the
mathadhipathi and other persons having interest and
after making such enquiry in the prescribed manner,
by operation of sub-section (4), the Commissioner may,
by order, modify or cancel the scheme framed under
sub-section (1). Every order made either under sub-
section (1) or sub-section (4) shall be published in the
prescribed manner. Any person aggrieved by the order
of the Commissioner passed under sub-section (1) or
(4), may, within 60 days from the date of publication of
the order, prefer an appeal to the court. The order of
the court by implication would be final."
"36. The object of Section 55 appears to be to remedy
mismanagement of the math or misutilisation of the
funds of the math or neglect in its management. The
scheme envisages modification or its cancellation
52 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
thereof, which would indicate that the scheme is of a
temporary nature and duration till the evil, which was
recorded by the Commissioner after due enquiry, is
remedied or a fit person is nominated as mathadhipathi
and is recognised by the Commissioner. The scheme is
required to be cancelled as soon as the nominated
mathadhipathi assumes office and starts administering
the math and manages the properties belonging to,
endowed or attached to the math or specific
endowment."
Subramanian Swamy v. State of T.N., (supra)
"28. As the 1987 Act did not provide the duration for
which the scheme would remain in force, the Court
held that "the duration of the scheme thus framed may
also be specified either in the original scheme or one
upheld with modification, if any, in appeal." The Court
held : (Sri Sri Sri Lakshmana Yatendrulu case, SCC p.
731, para 36)
"36. The object of Section 55 appears to be to remedy
mismanagement of the math or misutilisation of the
funds of the math or neglect in its management. The
scheme envisages modification or its cancellation
thereof, which would indicate that the scheme is of a
temporary nature and duration till the evil, which was
recorded by the Commissioner after due enquiry, is
remedied or a fit person is nominated as mathadhipathi
and is recognised by the Commissioner. The scheme is
required to be cancelled as soon as the nominated
mathadhipathi assumes office and starts administering
53 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
the math and manages the properties belonging to,
endowed or attached to the math or specific
endowment."
(emphasis supplied)
Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that there
cannot be supersession of administration in perpetuity.
It is a temporary measure till the evil gets remedied."
"54. The fundamental rights as protected under Article
26 of the Constitution are already indicated for
observance in Section 107 of the 1959 Act itself. Such
rights cannot be treated to have been waived nor its
protection denied. Consequently, the power to
supersede the functions of a "religious denomination" is
to be read as regulatory for a certain purpose and for a
limited duration, and not an authority to virtually
abrogate the rights of administration conferred on it."
"55. In such a fact situation, it was not permissible for
the authorities to pass any order divesting the said
respondent from administration of the Temple and
thus, all orders passed in this regard are liable to be
held inconsequential and unenforceable. More so, the
judgments relied upon by the respondents are
distinguishable on facts."
"56. Thus, in view of the above, it was not permissible
for the High Court to assume that it had jurisdiction to
sit in appeal against its earlier judgment of 1951 which
had attained finality. Even otherwise, the High Court
has committed an error in holding that the said
54 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
judgment in Marimuthu Dikshithar [Marimuthu
Dikshithar v. State of Madras, (1952) 1 MLJ 557 sub
nom Sri Lakshmindra Theertha Swamiar of Sri Shirur
Mutt v. Commr., Hindu Religious Endowments Board]
would not operate as res judicata. Even if the Temple
was neither established, nor owned by the said
respondent, nor such a claim has ever been made by
the Dikshitars, once the High Court in earlier judgment
has recognised that they constituted "religious
denomination" or section thereof and had right to
administer the Temple since they had been
administering it for several centuries, the question of
re-examination of any issue in this regard could not
arise." (emphasis supplied)
"57. The relevant features of the order passed by the
Commissioner are that the Executive Officer shall be in
charge of all immovable properties of the institution;
the Executive Officer shall be entitled to the custody of
all immovables, livestock and grains; the Executive
Officer shall be entitled to receive all the income in cash
and kind and all offerings; all such income and
offerings shall be in his custody; all the office-holders
and servants shall work under the immediate control
and superintendence of the Executive Officer, though
subject to the disciplinary control of the Secretary of
Respondent 6, etc."
56. If the submissions of the State are examined against the
backdrop of this law on the subject, it is clear that the
55 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
appointment of an Executive Officer is not actually supported
by any material which would justify the same. Neither
mismanagement nor any other such ground is borne out by
the record. The judgment reported in Pavani Sridhara Rao
v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, reported in
(1996) 8 SCC 298 comes to the aid of the petitioner in this
aspect wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly held that
there must be clear material to justify the appointment of an
Executive Officer.
57. The records filed by the respondent would show that on
27.11.2008, Sri B.V.Narasiah was directed to take "complete
charge" from Sri V.L.N.Ramanujam by, the Commissioner. To
a similar effect is the letter dated 12.03.2015 by which
M.Thimma Naidu was directed to take charge as E.O. The
language in the letter dated 25.04.2022 is even more explicit
and directs the incumbent to take complete charge of the
institution. The appointment of a Charity Commissioner was
struck down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay and
others, reported in (1996) 8 SCC 298. The relevant
paragraph is reproduced hereunder:
56 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
"The Mathadhipati is a trustee according to the
provisions of the Act and if the court is competent to
appoint the Charity Commissioner as a superior of a
math, the result would be disastrous and it would
amount to a flagrant violation of the constitutional
guarantee which religions institutions' have under the
Constitution in regard to the management of its religious
affairs. This is not a secular affair at all relating to the
administration of the trust property. The very object of a
math is to maintain a competent line of religious teachers
for propagating and strengthening the religious doctrines
of a particular order or sect and as there could be no
math without a Mathadhipati as its spiritual head, the
substitution of the Charity Commissioner for the superior
would mean a destruction of the institution altogether."
58. Thus, it is clear legally the taking over of complete
charge is a violation of the constitutional guarantee under
Article 26. Factually also if the records filed by the State are
examined, it appears that the earliest appointment of a
person styled as the Executive Officer was made in 1961.
However, a closer examination of the record reveals a contrary
position. The same is detailed hereunder:
59. The first document is a letter dated 27.01.1961 by
which one Sri V.R.Lakshminarayana was appointed. This
Lakshminarayana held office from 1961 to 1989. A reading
57 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
of this letter would show that he was actually appointed as a
Manager and the salary was to be drawn 50-50 from the
Temple fund and the Math fund. On 24.05.1989, the Deputy
Commissioner addressed a letter to the Private Secretary of
the Jeeyar asking them to retire the Manager and to appoint
another eligible person in his place. Only in the letter dated
20.11.1990, addressed to the Accountant General,
Lakshminarayana is referred to as a retired Executive Officer.
However, in the order dated 14.06.1990, where the pay
fixation of the Lakshminarayana was revised, he is again
referred to as the Manager. The appendix to the said letter
also describes him in clear term as the Manager and as an
officiating employee. This is further borne out by the letter
dated 13.08.1989 issued by the Deputy Commissioner
endowments to the Commissioner of Endowments
Department. It is clearly mentioned that Sri
R.Lakshminarayana was working as a Manager of the said
Temple with effect from 21.05.1961 as a Temple employee
under the control of the hereditary trustee. The letter of Sri
Lakshminarayana dated 05.02.1986, which is filed by the
respondent-State itself also clearly bears testimony to his
58 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
appointment in 1961 and the payment of his salary.
Thereafter since Sri Lakshminarayana retired, proposals were
sent to appoint one Sri V.L.N.Ramanujam. The proceedings
of the Jeeyar dated 24.06.1989 clearly show that Sri
V.L.N.Ramanujam was appointed in the vacancy caused due
to the retirement of R.Lakshminarayana. The Jeeyar also
recommended Sri Ramanujam as the fittest person to be
appointed as the Manager because of certain grounds
mentioned therein. Accordingly it appears that Sri
Ramanujam was appointed as a Manager. A letter was
addressed to the Deputy Commissioner to approve the said
appointment. This Ramanujam continued as the Manager till
2008. Thus, it is visible that from 1961 to 2008, for more
than four decades, Managers were appointed by the
Mathadipathi and approved by the Department. The action of
the hereditary trustee in appointing Sri V.L.N.Ramanujam
was approved on 11.01.1990 by the Commissioner.
Thereafter, his position continued till 2008 when by the letter
dated 27.11.2008, Sri Ramanujam was relieved of his
additional in-charge and charge was handed over to Sri
B.V.Narayana, 'Executive Officer'. A protest was also lodged
59 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
by the Jeeyar of the Ahobilam Math to this by the letter dated
06.05.2008 . It clearly states that the Ahobilam Temple is
under the administrative and financial control of the
Ahobilam Math and Jeeyars are the hereditary trustees. It is
mentioned clearly that the Manager of the Temple is a Temple
staff and not a departmental staff. Therefore, the pontiff
requested the Commissioner, Endowments to keep the
present incumbent till an alternative appointment is made. In
reply to this, Sri V.N.L.Ramanujam was kept in-charge of the
Manager of the post by the memo dated 12.05.2008.
Thereafter, on 12.03.2015, Sri V.L.N.Ramanujam, Executive
Officer was directed to handover charge to M.Timma Naidu,
Executive Officer of Sri Narasimhaswami Temple.
Therefore, it is apparent from these initial series of
appointments itself that the person appointed as a Manager
was later re-designated as an Executive Officer by the
respondents themselves. Neither a statutory provision nor a
rule has been brought to the notice of this Court to show how
this appointment was done. No material is filed to show that
the first two persons Lakshminarayan or Ramanujam are
from the state cadre. The definition of an Executive Officer as
60 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
found in the Act 17 of 1966 or even the later Act clearly states
that an Executive Officer is an Officer appointed under any of
the provisions of "this" Act. The respondents did not file any
material to justify the appointment.
60. The provisions of the Act as mentioned earlier provide
for interference with the activities of a Math only under
certain limited circumstances. A general power of supervision
and control is not given to the State. Section 27 of 1961 Act
talks of the appointment of an Executive Officer for every
charitable or religious institution or endowment based upon
the income of the institution. Section 27(5) clearly states that
the Executive Officer appointed under this section shall be an
employee of the Government and the conditions of service
shall be as determined by the Government. None of these
factors are actually present in the current case. The
appointment of Sri Ramanujam who was first called by the
nomenclature Executive Officer is not traceable to any of the
provisions of the Act. Apart from this, this Court also notices
Chapter V of the Act which clearly states in section 43 (of
Chapter V) that the provisions of section 27 will not apply to a
Math or to an endowment attached thereto. This act is
61 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
referred to since it was applicable at that point of time and till
the later Act came into force.
61. The case law on the subject has also been quoted
earlier. The Mathadipathi cannot be reduced to the status of
a mere employee or his powers cannot be denuded or taken
away by the appointment of an Executive Officer, who will
exercise all functions or control.
62. In the case on hand, the Court finds that the posting of
a Government servant in the Ahobilam Temple is not
supported by any statutory provision or a rule. While it is a
fact that there is some delay in the challenge of this
appointment, the fact remains that this post of an Executive
Officer is per se contrary to the provisions of the 1966 Act or
the later Act. Therefore, on the ground of mere delay, this
Court cannot approve the said decision since in the opinion of
this Court it is void ab initio and in violation of constitutional
right guaranteed under Article 26 of the Constitution of India.
CONCLUSION:
63. The above discussion leads us to an irresistible
conclusion that the Ahobilam Temple is an integral and
62 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
inseparable part of Ahobilam Math, which was established as
a part of propagation of Hindu religion and for rendering
spiritual service for propagating Sri Vaishnavism. The
successive Jeeyars are the trustees of the Ahobilam
Devasthanam and since the Government cannot appoint an
Executive Officer for the Ahobilam Math, it has no power to
appoint an Executive Officer for the Ahobilam Temple by
treating it separate from the Math. Appointing an Executive
Officer for Temple, which is a part of the Math, is violative of
Article 26(d) of the Constitution of India, as the same affects
Jeeyars'/Mathadipathis' right of administration.
64. We, accordingly, allow all the writ petitions and declare
that the State of Andhra Pradesh has no authority,
jurisdiction or entitlement under law to appoint an Executive
Officer of Sri Ahobila Mutt Parampara Aadheena Sri Lakshmi
Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam (Ahobilam Math Temple).
Consequently, it is declared that appointment of 3rd
respondent as Executive Officer vide proceedings
Rc.No.E2/15021/202/2020 dated 30.12.2020, is illegal and
the same is, accordingly, set aside. As a corollary, the
3rd respondent is restrained from interfering with the affairs
63 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020,
W.P.No.5105 of 2019 &
W.P.No.806 of 2021
of Sri Ahobila Mutt Parampara Aadheena Sri Lakshmi
Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam (Ahobilam Math Temple)
including operation of its bank accounts and the traditional
administration and operation of the bank accounts by the
Jeeyar of Ahobilam Math Temple, is restored. No order as to
costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU,J
KLP/MRR
