Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Boggavarapu Venkata Surya Prasad, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh. on 31 March, 2022
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No.: W.P.No.7842 of 2022
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. DATE OFFICE
ORDER
No NOTE
31.03.2022 NV, J
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Endowments.
The present writ petition is filed seeking declaration of the impugned proceedings dated 17.02.2022, issued by the 2nd respondent as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16, 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India.
The case of the petitioners is that petitioners are maintaining the affairs of the said Kothapalli Veerabhramendraswamy Vari Math/ Temple. The prime contention of the petitioner is that it is a Math and petitioner and his predecessors have been managing the due process of Math since decades at their own contributions only. It is also submitted that the subject Math is situated within the property of the founders of the said Math and the petitioners herein are the successors of the same. They have also filed a 'Will', said to have been executed by the Grand Mother of the original founder of the Math, bequeathed the property apart from 50% of the share in the subject matt. As such, it is a matt and it cannot be a temple, as per the recitals of the said 'Will' specifically states about the description of the subject Matt. Therefore, issuance of the present impugned proceedings i.e., appointing an Executive Officer is against the law and violative of Article 14 and also contrary to Section 29 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Act 30 of 1987) (in short ' the Act').
On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Endowments, specifically submits that this particular Math is a temple which was registered under Section 6(c)(ii) of Act 30 of 1987. Once a temple is registered under Section 6(c) it will be an endowment temple and the 1st respondent is empowered to appoint Executive Officer in respect of temples which were registered under Section 6 of the Act.
In the year 2014 itself, one Deputy Commissioner was appointed as single trustee and an Executive Officer for Group Temples was also appointed to manage the affairs of this particular temple and the same was challenged by the predecessors of the present writ petition by way of writ petition No. 11075 of 2014, contending that the Executive Officer should not be acted as a single trustee, the said writ petition was dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to challenge the proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments dated 26.03.2014 in appropriate proceedings. But after such appointment neither the Deputy Commissioner not the Executive Officer managed the affairs of the subject Math for all these years.
Having considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents, it is a fact that the subject Math is under control of the management of the petitioner. Even though this similar proceedings were issued in 2014, for one reason or the other, the said order shall not be implemented or taken over by the respondent authorities, which is evident from the present proceedings dated 17.02.2022. As such, the person who is managing the affairs is a person having interest over the subject Math and he must be provided opportunity by the respondent authorities and they must follow the principles of natural justice while issuing impugned proceedings. Whereas, the impugned proceedings does not contain about providing an opportunity to the petitioners who are managing the affairs of the subject Matt. Therefore there shall be an interim stay of proceedings dated 17.02.2022 issued by the 2nd respondent and to continue the petitioners as managing the affairs of the Math for a period of four (04) weeks.
List the matter on 18.04.2022.
_________ NV, J Note: C.C Today (B/o) BSP