Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Podugu Seshavatharam, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 14 October, 2024
APHC010417562024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3330]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY ,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No:
N 21237/2024
Between:
Podugu Seshavatharam, ...Petitioner
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...Respondent(s)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. D V SASIDHAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. Pasala Ponna Rao, Deputy Solicitor General of India
2. GP for Endowments
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition is filed assailing the
G.O.Rt.No.186, dated 07.09.2023, wherein, the 1st respondent in
constituting a Committee for offering suggestions / views and to
review / discuss on palm leaf manuscript and history of Sri
Venkateswara Swamy Temple in Talluru Matam, Gandepalli
Mandalam, Kakinada and the consequential Memo in RC
No.YTC07-17022/5/2022-H, dated 05.09.2024 issued by the 6th
respondent in designating the Committee members to constitute
the Committee, on the ground that the institution was established
in the year 1324 by Sri Jiyangar Swamy for propagating
Vyshnava Matham and thereafter ancestors of the petitioner
managed the institution and at present the petitioner managing
the affairs of the institution/matam and there are several disputes
which are pending before various Courts with regard to
management of subject institution and the said Mutt lies the
Jeeva Samadi of Jeeyar, who served as the first Matadipathi of
the Mutt and was renowned for propagating Sri Vaishnava Visista
Advaita Philosophy and the said Mutt cannot be classified as
temple society solely because it contains idols and the petitioner's
forefathers were devoted followers and disciples of Jeeyar
Swamy and responsible for overseeing Archakatvam and
Matadipathi in Mutt.
i. And in recent times, the temple manager has attempted
to make individual decisions those conflicts with the
customs of the mutt, as a result, the petitioner was
constrained to file O.A. No.59 of 2011 before the
Endowment Tribunal. Consequently, there is a directive
from the said tribunal refraining the authorities from
further interfering with the properties attached to the
institution.
ii. And the institution has got ancient manuscripts,
Archaeological and historical importance and the
petitioner has taken steps to bring the same under the
purview of protected monument as per Archaeological
sites and Remains Act, 1960 and as a consequence to
examination of the report and the palm leave manuscript
submitted by the 8th respondent wherein it was
categorically held that the Petitioner is managing the
affairs of the institution.
iii. And the Government of Andhra Pradesh has issued
G.O.Ms.No.42, dated 31.01.2011 calling for objections
or suggestions before declaring the same as Protected
Monument and vide G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 10.04.2018,
the subject institution was declared as protected
monument.
iv. While so, recently in the month of September, 2024, the
petitioner came to know that the respondents have
issued G.O.Rt.No.186 dated 07.09.2023 and the action
of the 6th respondent i.e. the State of Andhra Pradesh,
Department of Archaeology and Museums, in issuing
proceedings in Rc.No.YTC07-17022/5/2022-H, dated
05.09.2024 thereby constituting a committee and trying
to conduct inspection/hearing for the purpose of review
and discussion on palm leaf manuscript and history of
Sri Venkateswara Swamy, Talluru Matam, Gandepalli
Mandal, Kakinada, without issuing any notice to the
petitioner.
v. And it is bad and illegal and the petitioner has managed
affairs of the subject institution/mutt, the respondents
have not even issued any notice before constitution of
Committee vide G.O.Rt.No.186, dated 07.09.2023 for
the purpose of taking views and discussions on Palm
leaf manuscript and history of Talluru Mutt on the entire
episode which is referred above.
vi. The respondents are trying to take views on the basis of
a false complaint which was lodged by one Sri J.V.
Narasimha Murthy, in Spandana, who is no way
concerned with the mutt in order to trouble the petitioner
one way or the other. In consequence, the respondents
have issued impugned G.O.
Hence, prayed to set aside the impugned G.O.Rt.No.186
dated 07.09.2023 and Memo dated 05.09.2024 in constituting
the Committee with three members.
2. The purpose of the G.O, as understood by this court, is to
analyze, critique, and propose recommendations regarding the
manuscripts written on palm leaves and to understand the history
of the temple or Matt; it does not intend to interfere with the affairs
or management of the temple or Matt.
3. It is well-established principle of law that when any order is
made affecting the interest of a person which results in civil
consequences, the person affected is required to be heard before
passing such an order. Applying the above principle, it may be
held that when the committee is not deciding any matter except
collecting the materials on palm leaf manuscript and history of
temple or a Matt.
4. The law on this matter is well settled; therefore, no further
judgments need to be cited. Court intervention occurs only when
there is a finding of arbitrariness, unreasonableness, or a denial
of the rule of law. In this case, the decision to appoint a
committee to make recommendations regarding the manuscripts
written on palm leaves and to understand the history of the
temple does not demonstrate any such arbitrariness. The 1st
respondent acted within its authority in constituting committee,
and no legal flaw can be found in the said decision.
5. Furthermore, the petitioner is not adversely affected by the
committee's formation and does not require a hearing prior to its
establishment. The appointment serves a legitimate purpose of
collecting views on the palm leaf manuscripts and the history of
the Venkateswara Swamy Temple, and as such, it is legally
sound.
6. The official respondents are hereby directed to strictly
adhere to GO Ms No: 186 dt. 07-09-2023 and not to exceed the
purport of the GO. With the said observation the writ petition
stands dismissed. However no costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending in
this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
___________________________________
JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
Date: 14.10.2024
HARIN
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO
W.P.No. 21237 OF 2024
Date: 14-10-2024
Harin
