Telangana High Court
Akula Panduranga Rao vs The State Of Telangana on 14 July, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
1
wp_37082_2024& batch
NBK, J
THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION Nos.25495 and 33287 of 2023
AND
WRIT PETITION Nos.7932 and 37082 of 2024
COMMON ORDER:
W.P.No.37082 of 2024 is filed against the Letter dated 06.03.2024
issued by respondent No.4- M.R. Venkat Rao (allegedly a self-styled
Chairman of respondent No.3-Munnurukapu (Kapu) Vidyarthi
VasathiGruham Trust), suspending the petitioner from the Trusteeship of the
respondent No.3-Trust; W.P.No.7932 of 2024 is filed against the Letter
dated 20.02.2024, suspending the petitioner from the Trusteeship;
W.P.No.25495 of 2023 is filed against the Letter dated 05.09.2023,
suspending the petitioner from the Trusteeship of the Trust; W.P.No.33287
of 2023 is filed against the Letter dated 01.12.2023, calling for a meeting on
08.12.2023.
2. The petitioners in these writ petitions are primarily aggrieved by their
suspension as Trustees of the respondent No.3-Trust.The subject matter of
these writ petitions is similar and connected, and therefore the petitions are
analogously heard and are being disposed of by way of this Common Order.
For the purpose of discussion and reference, the averments in W.P.No.37082
of 2024 are taken.
3. The case of the petitioner, as per the writ affidavit in W.P.No.37082 of
2024, is that he is a senior trustee of respondent No.3-Munnurukapu (Kapu)
Vidyarthi VasathiGruham Trust (for short, the Trust), which is an institution
notified under Section 6(b)(ii) of the Endowments Act, 1890, and a
publication to that effect was made vide Gazette Notification dated
26.10.1995. It is stated that the petitioner and his family has contributed
wp_37082_2024& batch
NBK, J
significantly to the corpus of the Trust by collecting donations, and the Trust
was notified in the Gazette notification; and thereafter the Government vide
G.O.Rt.No.146 dated 02.06.2020 exempted the Trust from operation of
Section 15 and Section 29 of the Telangana State Charitable and Hindu
Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 for a period of five years.
While so, it is stated that 4th respondent-Mr. M.R. Venkat Rao, who resigned
from the Chairmanship of the Trust, on health issues, and handed over the
charge of Chairmanship to the petitioner, had unilaterally removed the
petitioner from the post of Managing Trustee on 05.09.2023. Further, the 4th
respondent issued letter dated 05.09.2023 suspending one of the Trustee i.e.,
Daduvai Raghavender, aggrieved by which the said Daduvai Raghavender
filed W.P.No.25495 of 2023 before this Court and this Court granted interim
suspension dated 13.09.2023 and the same is in force.
3.1 It is also stated that the 4th respondent, without notice and
approval from the petitioner and other Trustees, appointed three new
trustees, i.e, Akula Nagesh, Yalagundla Devender and Amaram Chandra
Shekhar, which is a contravention of law, as a new trustee can be appointed
only as per Clause No.3 of the Trust Deed dated 16.10.1956, and that there
is no provision for appointing more than 5 Trustees. However, the 4th
respondent has committed illegalities by appointing three more trustees. The
said action was challenged in W.P.No.33287 of 2023, which is pending
before this Court. It is stated that the Commissioner, Endowments issued
letter dated 19.02.2024 directing the Regional Joint Commissioner to see
that only the Trustees included in G.O.Rt.No.146, dated 02.06.2020 are
entitled to attend the Trust Board meeting, and the Trustees shall operate the
Bank account which is in operation as on the date of issuance of the
G.O.Rt.No.146, and they are not entitled to divert funds to other private
wp_37082_2024& batch
NBK, J
Banks by opening new account without bringing into the knowledge of
Government/Department, which amounts to embezzlement of funds.
3.2 It is alleged that the 4th respondent has opened new Bank
Accounts and made withdrawals without the knowledge of the petitioner
and senior trustees, and no procedure was followed while re-electing or
selecting the 4th respondent as Chairperson for respondent No.3-Trust once
he resigned on health issues, and hence respondent No.4 is functioning as
self-styled Chairperson issuing illegal resolutions, illegal financial
transactions and suspending the trustees. It is also alleged that the petitioner
had questioned the respondent No.4 about unauthorized financial
transactions, and opening of private Bank Account, and also gave a
complaint in the Police Station concerned, and also to the Commissioner of
Endowment Department on 16.02.2024. However, a meeting was conducted
on 20.02.2024 and a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The
petitioner furnished his explanation dated 26.02.2024, however, the same
was not considered, and the impugned Proceedings dated 06.03.2024 was
passed by the 4th respondent.
4. Heard Mr. Abhinav Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner; and
Mr. Peri Prabhakar, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Trust. Perused the
record.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions on the lines of
writ affidavit, and relied on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur vs. Mohan Lal 1 to contend that
the word "other authorities" is broader context and includes constitutional
and statutory authorities on whom powers are conferred by law. He also
relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra PradeshinP.
1967 SCC OnLine SC 18
wp_37082_2024& batch
NBK, J
Ashok Gajapathi Raju vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh2 wherein the
Court while referring to Section 28(2) of the Act, held that the Section itself
provides for giving of prior notice with the items of charge against the
Trustee concerned. Reliance is also placed on Anita Aidinyantz vs. Dr.
Ken. R. Gnanakan 3, wherein reference was made to the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Unni Krishnan vs. State of A.P. 4, and held as
follows:
"16. The issue can also be examined from a different angle.
Admittedly, the respondent institution is imparting education. The
Supreme Court in Unni Krishnan v. State of A.P. held that:
"The Term "authority" used in Article 226 the context must receive a
liberal meaning unlike the term in Article 12. Article 12 is relevant only for
the purpose of enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 32. Article
226 confers powers on the High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of
the fundamental rights as well as non-fundamental rights. The words "any
person or authority: used in Article 226 are, therefore, not to be confined
only to statutory authorities and instrumentalities of the State. They may
cover any other person or body performing public duty. The form of the
body concerned is not very must relevant. What is relevant is the nature
of the duty imposed on the body. The duty must be judged in the light of
positive obligation owed by the person or authority to the affected party.
No matter by what means the duty is imposed, if a positive obligation
exists mandamus cannot be denied."
17. The next question is, is it open to this court to direct
enforcement of contract of personal service?
18. I have already dealt with this issue in the earlier paragraphs. In my
view, though the respondent is a private institution, the relationship
between the petitioner and the respondents is regulated by the statute
i.e., Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 and therefore, this court in
exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can
direct the respondents to follow the procedure contemplated under the
statute before terminating the services of the petitioner. In my view the
petitioner's case is governed by the third exception to the rule that a
contract of personal service cannot ordinarily be enforced by a Court of
Law namely, where a statutory body acts in breach of violation of
mandatory provisions of law."
1997 (1) ALD 44
1993 (1) SCC 645
wp_37082_2024& batch
NBK, J
6. Per contra learned counsel for respondent No.3-Trust submits that a
letter dated 20.02.2024 was issued by respondent No.4 to the petitioner
stating that the petitioner has been going against the then Trustees who had
recommended his name for Chairmanship, and that the petitioner has been
interrupting the functioning of the Trust. It is contended that the petitioner
and others, namely, Manda Surya Prakash, Nimma Shankar have conducted
a Press Conference in Somajiguda Press Club on 18.02.2024 alleging
fraudulent use of Trust funds; and that the petitioner with his vested interests
have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Mitta Foundation,
and working against the interests of the Trust. It is contended that the reply
furnished by the petitioner dated 26.02.2024 in response to the letter dated
20.02.2024, has not been found satisfactory and the 4th respondent therefore
suspended the petitioner from Trusteeship; and there is no illegality in the
impugned order. It is further contended that the petitioner himself resigned
on health grounds on 15.02.2022 and, after eight months (i.e., on
15.10.2022) again assumed charge, and therefore the statement of the
petitioner that he was removed from the office of Managing Trustee on
05.09.2023 is not correct. It is also contended that there is a Resolution
dated 25.08.2023 to relieve the petitioner from Office of Managing Trustee
in view of his anti-Trust activities. It is further contended that the 4th
respondent has resigned from office temporarily on health grounds on
15.08.2022, however, the 4th respondent assumed charge again on
15.10.2022; that too with the consent of the petitioner herein and the same
was ratified by the Trust Board including the petitioner on 21.10.2022, as
such there cannot be any doubt on the validity of the functioning of the 4th
respondent. Learned counsel relies on the judgment of High Court of
wp_37082_2024& batch
NBK, J
Bombay in State of Maharashtra vs. L.D. Kanchan5, in support of his
contentions on amenability under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
7. Having considered the respective contentions and perused the record,
it may be noted that the grievance of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass.
Petitioner alleges that the 4th respondent has resigned from the
Chairmanship of the Trust long ago; and therefore the 4th respondent has no
authority to suspend the petitioner from the post of Chairman. It is also his
grievance that the 4th respondent has illegally opened an account in Axis
Bank, without the approval of the Trustees, as mandated under the Act.
Petitioner also alleges that the Trust Deed permits only 5 Members, but the
4th respondent inducted three new Trustees, which is not permissible as per
the Trust Deed.
8. It is to be noted that the respondent No.3-Trust is a notified public
Trust, governed under the Telangana State Charitable and Hindu Religious
Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987; and the Trustees are amenable under
the Prevention of Corruption Act, for the purposes of discipline and
administrative regulation under the Act. The Government vide
G.O.Rt.No.146 dated 02.06.2020 suspended the operation of Sections 15
and 29 of the Act. The operative portion of the G.O. reads as follows:
"In the circumstances reported by the Commissioner, Endowments
Department, Hyderabad, vide reference read above, Government,
after careful examination of the matter, under Section 154 of the Act,
30/87, hereby accord exemption to Munnuru Kapu
VidhyarthiVasathiGruham, Kachiguda Hyderabad from the operation
of the provision sof Section 15 and 29 of Telangana Charitable and
Hindu Religious Institutions &Ednowments Act, 1987 (Act 30/87) for
a period of (5) five years.
MANU / MH / 0124 / 1991
wp_37082_2024& batch
NBK, J
2. The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad shall
take necessary further action in the matter accordingly."
9. Section 15 of the Act deals with appointment of the Board of
Trustees, and composition of the Board, based on income threshold of the
institution/Trust; and Section 29 of the Act deals with appointment of
Executive Officer, with the Government or Commissioner, selecting the
officer based on income threshold of the institution/Trust.
10. With the exemption of Section 15 and 29 of the Act, the Government
cannot exercise any powers for appointing a Trustee, or Chairman to the
Trust. However, the powers of the State under the Act are regulatory in
nature, and the State therefore exercises considerable control over the
administration and financial management of charitable and religious
institutions under the Act, and such regulatory jurisdiction of the
Government under the Act is not taken away merely because of the
exemption under Section 15 and 29 of the Act.
11. Further, Section 51 of the Act, which deals with the protection of the
institution's property from mismanagement, alienation, or damage by
trustees, chairpersons, or executive officers, can still be invoked even if
Sections 15 and 29 are exempted by the Government, and the Government
can act independently of Trustee appointment or disqualification rules.
12. Although the Act does not specify a unique provision exclusively for
Chairman, it is to be noted that the Chairman of the Trust is effectively a
Trustee for disciplinary purposes, and he/she is amenable to Section 28 of
the Act. For reference, Section 28 reads as follows:
28. Suspension, removal or dismissal of trustee.
(1) The authority competent to appoint a trustee may suspend,
remove or dismiss a trustee if he-
wp_37082_2024& batch
NBK, J
(a) fails to discharge the duties and perform the functions of a
trustee in accordance with the provisions of this Act or the rules made
there under:
(b) disobeys any lawful orders issued under the provisions of this
Act or the rules made thereunder, by the Government or the
Commissioner [or the Additional Commissioner or the Regional Joint
Commissioner] [Inserted by Act No. 33 of 2007.] or the Deputy
Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner;
(c) refuses, fails or delays to handover the property and records in
his possession relating to the institution or endowment to his successor
or any other person authorized in this behalf;
(d) commits any malfeasance or misfeasance or is guilty of
breach of trust or misappropriation in respect of the properties of the
institution or endowment;
(e) becomes subject to any of the disqualifications specified in
section 19; or
(f) in the case of a religious institution or endowment, ceases to
profess Hindu religion.
(2) Where it is proposed to take action under sub-section (1),
the authority competent to appoint the trustee shall frame a charge
against the trustee concerned and give him an opportunity of meeting
such charge, of testing the evidence adduced against him and of
adducing evidence in his favour; and the order of suspension, removal or
dismissal shall state every charge framed against the trustee, his
explanation and the finding on such charge, together with the reasons
therefor.
(3) Pending disposal of any charge framed against a trustee,
the authority competent to appoint the trustee may suspend the trustee
and appoint a fit person to discharge the duties and perform, the
functions of the trustee.
13. In view of the Trust amenability under the Act, and the nature of
allegations and counter-allegations (between the petitionerand 4th
respondent), mainly relating to alleged fraudulent financial transactions by
opening of private Bank Account by 4th respondent in Axis Bank without
obtaining mandatory approval/signatures of other Trustees members; and
also the previous resignation of 4th respondent on health grounds and his
wp_37082_2024& batch
NBK, J
alleged rejoining; and similarly the previous resignation of petitioner on
health grounds and his alleged rejoining; and whether their alleged
resignations and rejoining on alleged mutual approvals have the necessary
support and approval of other Trustees under the Act; and more curiously
the alleged resignations and rejoining on mutual approvals are both averred
and also negated by each other in their respective affidavits; and whether the
induction of three new Trustees over and above the five Trustees already
existing, is permissible under the Trust Deed and whether such an action has
the necessary approval of the Trustees under the Trust Deed, are all
questions of fact. Further, it is apparent from the copy of Trust Resolution
dated 02.05.2023 filed by the petitioner with his Memo dated 27.03.2024
wherein the petitioner (as Managing Trustee), and 4th respondent (as
Chairman), and other Trustees, are signatories to the Resolution for entering
into a Memorandum of Understanding with Mitta Foundation for running a
Skill Development Center, is a unanimous resolution, whereas the impugned
order alleges that the petitioner entered into agreement with vested interests.
This prima facie shows that the petitioner's reply dated 26.02.2024 was
plainly rejected stating "not satisfactory", without taking note of the
allegations/concerns raised by the petitioner on the alleged irregularities in
the management of Trust.
14. In view of the questions of fact, and keeping in view the overall
regulatory control exercised by the Government over the Trust under the
Act, including the power of suspension, removal and dismissal of an
appointed Trustee in accordance with Section 28 of the Act, in conjunction
with analogous provision under Section 51 of the Act, in case of
irregularities/illegalities, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the
Commissioner, Endowments Department, as a fact-finding authority, to
issue notices to both the parties, hear them and consider the evidence that
wp_37082_2024& batch
NBK, J
they may file/plead in support of their case, and thereafter pass appropriate
orders, strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible,
preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order. This Court passed interim orders suspending the impugned
Proceedings dated 06.03.2024 (in W.P.No.37082 of 2024), and the interim
orders were being extended from time to time, and the interim orders are in
force as on today. Similar interim orders were passed in the other writ
petitions also, directing that the legality of the impugned proceedings
therein in the respective writ petitions would be subject to the outcome of
the writ petitions. In that view of the matter, this Court therefore deems it
appropriate to continue the interim orders,till the time the Commissioner
passes appropriate orders, after due enquiry under Section 28 of the Act, as
per law.
15. Accordingly, the writ petitionsare disposed ofwith the above direction
to the Commissioner, Endowments Department. The interim orders in
favour of the petitioner(s) against the impugned Letter dated 06.03.2024 (in
W.P.No.37082 of 2024), and Letter dated 20.02.2024 (in W.P.No.7932 of
2024), and Letter dated 05.09.2023 (in W.P.No.25495 of 2023), and Letter
dated 01.12.2023 (in W.P.No.33287 of 2023) shall continue, until the
Commissioner, Endowments Department, passes appropriate orders, as per
the above direction. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall
stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
14th July, 2025
ksm
wp_37082_2024& batch
NBK, J
wp_37082_2024& batch
NBK, J
THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION Nos.25495 and 33287 of 2023
AND
WRIT PETITION Nos.7932 and 37082 of 2024
14th July, 2025
ksm
