Telangana High Court
Degala Prasad vs State Of Telangana on 2 July, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.7485 OF 2024
ORDER (per Hon'ble SP,J)
Sri M.Vidyasagar, learned counsel appears for the
petitioners and Sri Bhukya Mangilal Naik, learned Government
Pleader for Endowments appears for respondent Nos.1 and 3.
Nobody appeared for State of Andhra Pradesh despite the reflection
of name of learned counsel for State of Andhra Pradesh in the
cause list.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the main
temple namely, Sree Seetharamachandra Swamy Vari Devastanam,
Bhadrachalam, is situated in the State of Telangana. Few
properties of the said temple are situated in the State of Andhra
Pradesh. The petitioners received the impugned notices on various
dates issued by respondent No.5 from the State of Andhra Pradesh
alleging that the petitioners are using/enjoying the land of said
temple without paying any taxes and therefore, they were directed
to vacate the lands forthwith.
3. Criticizing the notice, learned counsel for the petitioners
placed reliance on a judgment of a Constituent Bench of Supreme
Court in Anant Prasad Lakshminiwas Ganeriwal v. State of
Andhra Pradesh and others 1 and placed heavy reliance on the
following paragraph:
"This decision in our opinion makes it abundantly
clear that where the trust is situate in a particular State,
the law of that State will apply to the trust, even though
any part of the trust property, whether large or small, is
situate outside the State where the trust is situate."
4. It is submitted that since the main temple is situated in
Telangana, the authorities of Andhra Pradesh have no authority,
jurisdiction and competence to put the petitioners to notice for
alleged non-payment of taxes. It is the authorities of Telangana
only who can take action.
5. Learned Government Pleader for Endowments, Telangana
submits that the impugned notices are issued by the State of
Andhra Pradesh and he, at present, has no role to play.
6. The Apex Court in Special director v. Mohd. Ghulam
Ghouse 2 laid down the law about scope of interference in a show
cause notice and it reads as under:
"5. This Court in a large number of cases has deprecated the
practice of the High Courts entertaining writ petitions questioning
legality of the show-cause notices stalling enquiries as proposed
and retarding investigative process to find actual facts with the
participation and in the presence of the parties. Unless the High
Court is satisfied that the show-cause notice was totally non est in
the eye of the law for absolute want of jurisdiction of the authority
to even investigate into facts, writ petitions should not be
entertained for the mere asking and as a matter of routine, and the
writ petitioner should invariably be directed to respond to the
show-cause notice and take all stands highlighted in the writ
petition. Whether the show-cause notice was founded on any legal
premises, is a jurisdictional issue which can even be urged by the
AIR 1963 SC 853
(2004) 3 SCC 440
recipient of the notice and such issues also can be adjudicated by
the authority issuing the very notice initially, before the aggrieved
could approach the court."
(Emphasis Supplied)
7. In the instant case, in our opinion, mixed questions of facts
and law are involved. The law can be made applicable when certain
facts are not in dispute. The location of main Temple, the
nexus/relation of bodies which have received the impugned notice
with main Temple, nature of activity, taxability, etc., are essential
mixed questions of facts and law. Thus, we are not inclined to
entertain this petition. Instead, we deem it proper to direct the
petitioners to file reply to the impugned show cause notice within
fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If
such reply is filed within the aforesaid time, we have no doubt that
respondent No.5 shall consider and take a decision, in accordance
with law.
8. The Writ Petition is disposed of without expressing any
opinion on merits of the case and on the territorial jurisdiction of
this Court. No costs.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand
closed.
_____________
Sujoy Paul, J
_______________________________
Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, J
2nd July, 2024
Myk/Tsr
