Pendyala Srinivas vs State Of Telangana,
2025 Latest Caselaw 3892 Tel

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 3892 Tel
Judgement Date : 13 June, 2025

Telangana High Court

Pendyala Srinivas vs State Of Telangana, on 13 June, 2025

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL
        WRIT PETITION No.15602 of 2025
 ORDER:

This writ petition is filed to issue appropriate

writ, order or direction, more particularly, a Writ of

Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the respondent

No.3 herein, i.e., the Assistant Commissioner,

Endowments, R.R District, in conducing the Oath of

Office and Secrecy to the petitioner herein who are

appointed as Trustees of the Trust Board of Sri

Trinethra Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Sahebnagar

Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District,

as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of

the Act, and Rules of the Endowments Act, 1987 and

pass such other order or orders.

2. Heard Sri D.Sudarshan Reddy, learned

counsel for the petitioners, Ms.Sailaja, learned

Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments

appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri

Ch.Satish Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for

Endowments appearing for respondent No.4. Perused

the materials available on record.

3. The brief facts leading to filing of this writ

petition are that the petitioners are appointed as

trustees to the Sri Trinethra Anjaneya Swamy

Temple-respondent No.4 vide proceedings dated

25.04.2025 and as per the said proceedings, the

petitioners are requested to take oath of office and

secrecy as required under Sub-Section (2) of the

Section 19 of the Act 30/87 before they enter upon

office. If any trustee fails to take, within thirty days

from the date on which he was appointed, the Oath of

office and secrecy laid down in Sub-Section (2)

he/she shall cease to hold office. That being the

condition, the petitioners have been appointed as

trustees are not been allowed to take oath by

respondent No.3. Aggrieved thereby the present writ

petition has been filed by the petitioners.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would

contend that the petitioners are deprived of their

legitimate rights. Though the petitioners have been

appointed as trustees, no action has been taken by

respondent No.3 to administer the Oath of office and

secrecy to the appointed Trustees, though he is also

authorized to conduct a special meeting of the

trustees to conduct the election of the Chairman of

the Trust Board as per the rules framed under

Section 20 of the Act, 1987, still said meeting was

also not conducted and no steps have been taken to

cause notice for taking oath to enable the petitioners

to take oath of office and secrecy, thereby the right of

the petitioners to function as trustees to the said

Temple.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would rely

on the Judgment passed by this Court in

W.P.Nos.1020 and 1337 of 2007 in case of Rapolu

Sudhakar and another v. Government of Andhra

Pradesh, Revenue (Endowments II/I) Department

and others 1 and submitted that the petitioners are

2007 (2) ALT 587

willfully appointed as trustees and not allowed to take

Oath at the behest of respondent No.3. The

petitioners are entitled to take Oath of office and

function as trustees by virtue of appointment by the

respondent No.2 vide proceedings in

Rc.No.F4/3837/2025, dated 25.04.2025. Therefore,

he seeks to allow this writ petition.

6. On the other hand, learned Assistant

Government Pleader for Endowment appearing for

respondent Nos.1 to 3 would submit that as per the

provisions under Section 19(2) and (3) of the

Endowments Act, 1987, the petitioners were directed

to take Oath within a period of thirty days from the

date of appointment, but they have failed to take

Oath, therefore, they have lost their right to appoint

as trustees. It is further submitted that the petitioner

have been failed on their part and seeking any relief

in this writ petition is cannot be permitted as they

have lost their right to appoint as trustees.

Therefore, seeks permission of this Court that the

official respondents of the Temple to take necessary

action in accordance with law to appoint trustees

afresh.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the

petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for

Endowments appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and

learned Standing Counsel for Endowments appearing

for respondent No.4, this Court on an earlier occasion

examined the similar circumstances in the matter of

Rapolu Sudhakar and another (Cited supra) and

the relevant observations as under:

iv) Is there any embargo on oath taking:

After filing the writ petition, the petitioner in W.P.No.1020 of 2007 filed additional affidavits. In one such affidavit, a contention is raised that the respondents 4 to 12 having failed to take oath of office and secrecy within thirty days from the date of the G.O. cease to hold office. The submission is misconceived. A perusal of the impugned G.O. would show that the first respondent while appointing respondents 4 to 12 directed the second respondent to take steps to administer oath of office and secrecy to the persons appointed and also for election of the Chairman of the Trust Board, as per the provisions of

Section 20 of the Act. The impugned G.O. was issued on 08.1.2007. Even before the Commissioner could initiate action as ordered by the Government, the writ petition was filed on 17.1.2007 and, therefore, Section 19(3) of the Act has no application. Unless and until the second respondent convenes meeting by issuing notice to all the appointed trustees, the time of thirty days does not start running. Therefore, there cannot be any impediment for respondents 4 to 12 to take oath of office and secrecy under Section 19(2) of the Act, as and when the second respondent take steps to administer oath of office and secrecy. Be it also noted that as per Section 19(2) of the Act, it is only the Commissioner, who has to administer oath of office and secretary to respondents 4 to 12 and this process is yet to commence.

8. The matter in this writ petition is similar to

the case in W.P.Nos.1020 and 1337 of 2007 and as

per the said proceedings, the petitioners are

requested to take oath of office and secrecy as

required under Sub-Section (2) of the Section 19 of

the Act 30/87 before they enter upon office, but

respondent No.3 authority has not taken any steps in

accordance with law, resultantly, did not allow them

to take oath of the office and secrecy. As per Section

19(2) of the Act, it is only the Commissioner-

respondent No.3, who has to administer oath of office

and secretary of petitioners. Unless and until the