Sreenivasulu Palepu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 7363 AP

          HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR
                                AND
     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

                     W.P. (PIL) NO. 256 of 2021

"BY ORDER OF THE COURT"


1.   The present Public Interest Litigation came to be filed by one

Sreenivasulu Palepu, claiming himself to be Vishwabrahmin in

Hinduism and descended from Sri Sri Sri Vishwakarma Bhagavan

& Veda Maata Gayatri Mata, seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus

to set-aside The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious

Institutions   and       Endowments   (Amendment)     Act,   2021

['Amendment Act'], as violative of Articles 25 and 26 of the

Constitution of India.


2.   The averments in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ

Petition would indicate that, the father of the Petitioner is the

main Priest of Sri Sri Sri Madvirat Potuluri Veerabrahmendra

Swamy Temple, Tellapadu Village, Maddi Padu Mandal, Prakasam

District. The Petitioner used to accompany him in Mutt activities,

especially during worship ceremonies, navratri poojas and Hindu

festivals. The Petitioner claims to have participated in many

campaigns, performed Gayatgri Yajna, also took initiation of
                                   2



Veerabrahmendra Swami, Ayyappa Swami Mala Deeksha and

Durga Matha Deeksha programs and chantings. During his

college days, he held various positions in Akhila Bharateeya

Vidhyarthi Parishad, a student organization.


3.   Aggrieved by the excessive action of the Respondents in

amending The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious

Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 ['Act'], through the

Amendment Act, 2021, as violative of Articles 14, 25 and 26 of the

Constitution of India and the provisions of the Act, the present

Public Interest Litigation came to be filed.

4. (i) It is pleaded that, the rights enshrined in "Right to

Freedom of Religion' head under Part III of the Constitution of

India, more particularly, that of religious denominations in Article

26 of the Constitution of India, cannot be interfered with by the

State, except in the interest of public order. The Andhra Pradesh

Legislature though enacted the Act, and its Preamble as "An Act to

consolidate and amend the law relating to the administration and

governance of Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and

Endowments in the State of Andhra Pradesh" but the said Act has

been amended multiple times, at the instance of successive

governments. Provisions relating to the Andhra Pradesh Dharmika

Parishad, were incorporated in the Act, vide amendment through

Act 33 of 2007 in pursuance of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in Sri Sri Sri Lakshmana Yatendrulu and Others Vs.

State of A.P and Another1. This resulted in addition of Sections

10-A and 152 to the Act. In pursuance of Section 152(3) of the

Act, the Revenue (Endowments) Department, issued Rules under

which Andhra Pradesh Dharmika Parishad shall be governed

under notification dt.16.09.2008. The Hon'ble High Court

recognized the significance of Dharmika Parishad in one of its

judgment through which this Hon'ble Court designated onus on

Dharmika Parishad to settle the continuous disputes between the

successors of the Mutt. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble

High Court in N.Govinda Swamy Vs. State of A.P. [Writ Appeal

No.535 of 2021], recent amendments to the Act, were made in

December, 2021, purportedly for administration convenience, by

the A.P. State Legislation. The same is as under:-

"2. On the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, in Section 152, in Sub Section (1), the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:-

"Provided that where the Dharmika Parishad could not be constituted as prescribed above, the official members at Item Nos.(i) (iv) shall discharge the functions of the Dharmika Parishad."

1996 AIR 1414

(ii) It is further submitted that The Andhra Pradesh Charitable

and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments (Amendment)

Act, 2021, strikes at the root of the main Act, infringing the

Fundamental Guarantees guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of

the Constitution of India and also contrary to the judgments of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Therefore, it is pleaded that the

Amended Act will not stand the test of constitutionality and as

such the same needs to be struck down.

5. (i) The 3rd and 4th Respondents filed counter stating that, the

present Act, 1987, is a comprehensive law providing better

management of the properties and utilization of funds of the

Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments. It

is stated that Section 152 of the Act is amended by Amendment

Act 33 of 2007 w.e.f. 03.01.2008, which now deals with

constitution of Andhra Pradesh Dharmika Parishad to appoint

Trust Boards to the Endowments / Institutions having income

between Rs.25 lakhs to Rs.1 Crore. The A.P. Dharmika Parishad

is a multi-member body with 21 members consisting of official (4)

members and non-official (17) members from different sections of

the public life, invitees etc. It is said that due to reasons beyond

control, the Government could not appoint non-official members

of Dharmika Parishad for quite a long time.

(ii) It is further submitted that, as per Section 152(3), the powers,

functions and term of office etc., of the members of A.P. Dharmika

Parishad shall be as prescribed. Accordingly, so as to see that the

work of Dharmika Parishad shall not be hampered due to non

presence of non-official members of Dharmika Parishad, the

Government of Andhra Pradesh has amended the Dharmika

Parishad Rules, 2009 vide G.O.Ms.No.423, Revenue

(Endowments-I) Department, dated 09.11.2015 by substitution of

Rules 6 and 17 which read as follows:

"Rule-6:- Notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules and other Rules for the time being in force, the term of non-official members of Dharmika Parishad shall be 3 years from the date of taking oath of office, however, the Dharmika Parishad shall be a perpetual body with the four official members mentioned in Sec.152 of the Act, constituting into an Executive Committee of Dharmika Parishad".

"Rule-17:- Notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules and other Rules for the time being

(a) The quorum necessary for the transaction of business at a meeting of the Dharmika Parishad shall be half of the sitting members.

(b) In absence of appointment of non-official members, the Dharmika Parishad shall continue permanently with the official members mentioned in (i) to (iv) of sub- Section (1) of Section 152 of the Act to perform the functions and discharge the duties entrusted to it.

(iii) The Dharmika Parishad, or in its absence, the Executive Committee of the Dharmika Parishad shall meet at least once in sixty (60) days."

(iii) It is further submitted that, in the absence of formation of

full body of Dharmika Parishad, four ex-officio members

mentioned in (i) to (iv) of sub-section (1) of Section 152 of the Act

are appointed as Members of Executive Committee of Dharmika

Parishad to discharge the functions of Dharmika Parishad so as to

avoid hampering of day-to-day work. While the matter stood thus,

the Hon'ble Court in Arjun Dass Vs. State of A.P & Others in

I.A.No.1/2020 in W.P.No.2391/2020 by its interim order

dt.10.02.2020 observed as follows:

"It is a settled and well established principle of law that the Rules framed under an enactment are required to be subservient to the provisions of the main statute and the Rules cannot over-ride the legislation made by the Legislature. When Sec.152 of the Endowments Act clearly mentions about constitution of Dharmika Parishad, a different meaning cannot be given to the provisions of the main statute, by way of the Rules. In the instant case as observed supra, there is no body existing i.e., Dharmika Parishad as per the provisions of Sec.152 of Endowments Act. Therefore, this Court is of prima-facie opine that the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondents cannot be sustained in the light of law".

(iv) In the light of the above said order, the Government issued

an ordinance vide A.P. Ordinance No.13 of 2021 w.e.f 01.09.2021

by inclusion of the following proviso to sub-section(1) of Section

152 of the Endowments Act, 1987:

"Provided that where the Dharmika Parishad could not be constituted as prescribed above, the official members at item Nos.(i) to (iv) shall discharge the functions of Dharmika Parishad".

(v) Later, the above ordinance was repealed / replaced by

Amendment Act 32 to 2021, which came into effect from

30.12.2021.

(vi) It is further submitted that, in view of the amendment to

Section 152 of the Act, the Dharmika Parishad can now function

with the official members in Sl. Nos. (i) to (iv) of Sub-Section (1) of

Sec.152 of the Act, in the absence of formation of full body of

Dharmika Parishad. It is only a temporary arrangement, as

Dharmika Parishad cannot be defunct simply because of non

constitution of full body of Dharmika Parishad, as per sub-

section(1) of Section 152 of the Act, by the Government. To avoid

practical difficulties, a time gap arrangement has been made by

the Government by insertion of a provision to Sec.152(1) of the

Act, so as to enable the Executive Body of Dharmika Parishad i.e.,

with four official members, who can discharge the functions of

A.P. Dharmika Parishad until full body is constituted by the

Government. The amendment to Sec.152 of the act by Amendment

Act 32 of 2021 is perfectly valid and there is no violation of

Constitution provisions much less Articles 25 & 26 of the

Constitution of India and the judgments quoted by the Petitioner

in the affidavit in support of the Writ Petition, are in no way

connected with the present Amendment Act, as all those

judgments are prior to Amendment Act 33 of 2007, wherein

Section 152 of the Act was amended by constitution of Andhra

Pradesh Dharmika Parishad. Prior to Amending Act 33 of 2007,

Section 152 of the Act dealt with constitution of an advisory

council for the State. The said council shall advise the

Government, the developmental activities that may be undertaken

by the Charitable or the Religious Institutions and Endowments

and also advise on such other matters to the Government. The

Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Appeal No.535 of 2021

observed as follows:

"....... Since the learned Single Judge left it open to the Dharmika Parishad to re-consider the matter and pass resolutions, this Court to meet the ends of justice is inclined to dispose of the appeal providing liberty to the appellants to put forth their claims before the Dharmika Parishad which in-turn shall consider the same in the light of the provisions of the act and the Rules framed thereunder, independently, without reference to any of the observations made by the learned Single Judge or by this Court and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules............"

(vii) In view of the directions given in Writ Appeal No.535 of

2021, the appellants therein submitted their claim to Dharmika

Parishad to recognize them as a permanent and temporary

Mathadhipathis respectively to the Mutt. In the meanwhile the

Government have issued A.P. Ordinance No.13 of 2021 to insert a

proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 152 of the Act.

(viii) It is further submitted that the present Petitioner, who filed

this Writ Petition as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging

the Endowments Amendment act, 2021 dated 22.11.2021, is only

a name lender. The present Writ Petition appears to be a off-spring

of main litigation of Sri Madvirat Pothuluri Veerabrahmendra

Swamy Vari Mutt, initiated at the instance of the second wife of

late Mathadhipathi, and as such, the Petitioner cannot maintain

this Writ Petition as Public Interest Litigation (PIL).

6. The point that arises for consideration in this Public Interest

Litigation is, as to whether (i) it is a Public Interest Litigation or

Private Interest Litigation, (ii) the amendments made to the

Amendment Act are violative of Articles 14, 24 and 25 of the

Constitution of India, more particularly to Dharmika Parishad?

7. As seen from the record, the present Public Interest

Litigation came to be filed by one Sreenivasulu Palepu, claiming

himself to be Vishwabrahmin in Hinduism and descended from

Sri Sri Sri Vishwakarma Bhagavan & Veda Maata Gayatri Mata.

8. The counter filed by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 would show

that, the present Public Interest Litigation is an offspring of main

litigation relating to Veerabrahmendra Swamy Vari Mutt raised at

the instance of second wife of late Mathadhipathi. The averments

in the counter also show that four [04] Official Members as

Executive Body of Dharmika Parishad conducted an enquiry on

30.10.2021, after issuing notices to the Appellants in W.A. No.535

of 2021, as well as to all concerned and, thereafter, three [03]

separate Orders came to be passed on 28.11.2021, viz., (i)

appointing a fit person to the Mutt for day-to-day administration

until nomination of permanent Mathadhipathi to prevent

pilferages and daily management, (ii) rejected the claim of

appellants for recognition of them as Mathdhipathi of the Mutt,

with a liberty to appear along with the other claimants before

Authorized Officer appointed under Section 54(2), to convey a

meeting among the Mathadhipathis of similar sampradayam of the

Mutt, (iii) appointed Joint Commissioner (Estates) in Endowments

Department as Authorized Officer under Section 54(2) to convey a

meeting of Mathadhipatis of similar sampradayam and submit

report to Dharmika Parishad, to proceed further in nominating

permanent Mathadhipathi to the said Mutt.

9. Aggrieved by the three [03] orders of Dharmika Parishad, the

second wife of late Mathadhipathi and her minor son represented

by her, as guardian, filed W.P. No. 29071/2021 and obtained

interim stay of convening any meeting for finalizing the name of

the person as the next Peetadhipathi. Not being satisfied with the

litigation, the second wife of late Mathadhipathi got filed the

present Public Interest Litigation through one Sreenivasulu

Palepu, who is her close relative and who is also said to have

accompanied her for enquiry conducted by four [04] Official

Members as Executive Body of Dharmika Parishad on 30.10.2021.

Hence, it is averred in the counter that the Petitioner is only a

name lender and very much interested in the litigation.

10. Further, no reply came to be filed disputing the averments

made in the counter. Therefore, the averments in the counter

filed, with regard to the relationship of the Petitioner with the

enquiry conducted and that he accompanied the second wife of

Mathadhipathi, cannot be brushed aside. Therefore, the

declaration made by the Petitioner that he does not have any

personal interest in the matter and that this Public Interest

Litigation was filed in the larger interest of the society, cannot be

accepted.

11. Be that as it may, it is to be noted that, on 13.08.2022, the

Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms. No. 571,

constituting Andhra Pradesh Dharmika Parishad with 21

Members, out of which, the persons whose names were shown at

Serial No.1 to 4 are Official Members, while others are Non-Official

Members, whose term shall be for a period of three years from the

date of taking oath of Office. This Government Order came to be

issued after the matter was heard and reserved. Hence, it was

listed again and after hearing the Petitioner counsel and

respondent, it was reserved.

12. The grievance of the Petitioner is that, though G.O.Ms.

No.571, dated 13.08.2022, came to be issued in exercise of powers

conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 152 of the Andhra

Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and

Endowments Act, 1987, constituting Andhra Pradesh Dharmika

Parishad with 21 Members, but the amendment to the Act vide

Act No. 32 of 2021 continues to be in force. In other words, his

grievance appears to be that, even after the expiry of the term of

21 Members, appointed under sub-Section (1) of Section 152, the

provisions of the Act will come into force and the four [04] persons

mentioned in the proviso to Section 152 will discharge the

function of Dharmika Parishad, which according to the Petitioner,

cannot be permitted. It is his plea that the Executive Instructions

as well as the amendment to the Act, cannot run parallel to each

other.

13. Learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for

the Respondents opposed the same contending that the question

of these official four [04] persons continuing parallel to persons

appointed vide G.O.Ms. No. 571, dated 13.08.2022, is incorrect.

Her case is that, these four [04] persons mentioned in proviso (1)

to Section 152 namely, (i) Minister for Endowments as "the

Chairman"; (ii) The Secretary; (iii) The Commissioner of

Endowments as "Member Secretary"; and (iv) Executive Officer,

Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, form part of 21 body and, as

such, after the expiry of their term, a fresh Government Order

could be issued appointing another 21 Members. In other words,

her arguments appears to be that, anticipating a contingency that

the Government may continue with first four persons again as

Dharmika Parishad Members, the Petitioner herein is under a

impression that both these proceedings run parallel to each other.

14. A perusal of the amendment to the Act, would show that, the

proviso to Section 152 came to be inserted stating that, "where the

Dharmika Parishad could not be constituted as per Section

152(1), the official members, at Serial Nos. (i) to (iv) shall

discharge the functions of the Dharmika Parishad", meaning

thereby that, for functioning of "Dharmika Parishad", as

prescribed under Section 152(1), these four persons will function

as Members of Dharmika Parishad till a full body is appointed.

This would be a stop gap arrangement and cannot be eternal.

15. In view of the said proviso, G.O.Ms.No. 571, dated

13.08.2022, came to be issued invoking the power under sub-

section (1) of Section 152 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and

Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987,

constituting a Committee consisting of 21 Members. The

Committee of 21 Members include the four [04] Members referred

to in sub-section (1) of Section 152. The term of non-official

members would be for three [03] years and after the expiry of their

term and till a new Committee is continued, these four [04]

members will take care of Dharmika Parishad. As said earlier, the

said arrangement is only a temporary one done with a view to

protect the interest of the Mutt after the expiry of the terms of

non-official members.

16. Therefore, it cannot be said that, there are two parallel

bodies, one under the Act and another under the Executive

Instructions, running parallel to each other.

17. Viewed from any angle, we see no ground to entertain the

Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition (PIL) is dismissed. No

order as to costs.

18. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall

stand closed.

_________________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

__________________________________ DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J

Date: 26.09.2022 Dinesh..../SM...

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

W.P. (PIL) NO. 256 of 2021 (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice C. Praveen Kumar)

Date: 26.09.2022

Dinesh/SM...