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 49 W.P.No. 21237 OF 2024 Date: 14-10-2024 Harin