Telangana High Court
Sri Swarnagiri Laxmi Narsimha Swamy ... vs The State Of Telangana And 7 Others on 5 September, 2022
Author: B. Vijaysen Reddy
Bench: B. Vijaysen Reddy
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No. 21347 OF 2022
ORDER :
This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 02.02.2022 in proceedings No.A4/3000/2020 passed by respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, whereunder a Board of Non-Hereditary Trustees to Sri Swayambhu Swarnagiri Laxmi Narsimha Swamy Temple was constituted and respondent Nos.4 to 8 herein were appointed as Non-Hereditary Trustees to the said temple situated at Gowrelly (V), Abdulapurmet (M), Ranga Reddy District.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that the forefathers of petitioner No.2 constructed the subject temple about 500 years back and his family members had been managing the temple as hereditary trustees/archakas. The father of petitioner No.2 was in management of the temple performing poojapath and after his demise. The petitioner No.2 has been managing the temple and performing poojas with his own expenditure. It is stated that the subject temple is an ancient temple established by creation of the deity on a big stone with great architects. The family of the petitioners constructed four walls around the deity, which is treated as a famous powerful God. After demise of the father of petitioner No.2, he succeeded as hereditary trustee/archaka of the said 2 BVR,J W.P.No.21347 of 2022 temple and he had been doing poojapath through his son Naveen Kumar Goverdhanam, petitioner No.3 herein, and regularly conducting uthsavams, festivals and kalyanamahothsavam on Vishaka Sukla Chethurdasi Pournami day with their own expenses and with the help of some devotees. While so, the petitioner No.2 proposed to renovate the subject temple as it was in dilapidated condition. He got renovated the temple with the help of his elder son and his three friends and also conducted festivals and kalyanothsavams. Since the renovation of the subject temple, respondent Nos.4 to 8 herein and their henchmen started interfering with the temple activities. While the matter stood thus, the petitioners came to know through the Inspector of the concerned area about the notification dated 21.09.2020 issued by respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner, Endowments, calling for applications from interested persons for constitution of Non-Hereditary Board of Trustees to the said temple. On enquiry, the petitioners came to know that there was a proposal from the local MLA for registration of the subject temple under Section 43 of the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short 'the Act) and the temple was registered on 21.03.2020. It is contended that registration of the subject temple was without following the procedure contemplated under the Act and that objections of the petitioners were not called for. It is stated that 3 BVR,J W.P.No.21347 of 2022 petitioner No.2 came to know about registration of the temple on 23.04.2022. It is contended that though the petitioners are hereditary Archakas/Trustees doing archakatvam in the subject temple, without issuing notice to them, the temple was registered.
3. It is stated that the notification vide proceedings in Rc.No.A4/3000/2020 dated 21.09.2020 was challenged by elder son of petitioner No.2 by filing W.P.No.19013 of 2020. In the said writ petition, interim order was passed to the effect that any appointments would be subject to result of the writ petition. The said writ petition is pending. In the said writ petition, respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit admitting that there was no publication/notification of the subject temple under Section 6 of the Act. On 03.02.2022, when the Inspector came for conducting oath of respondent Nos.4 to 8 (Trustees), the petitioners came to know about the orders dated 25.01.2022 in proceedings No.A4/3000/2020 issued by respondent No.2, whereby a Board of Non-Hereditary Trustees to the subject temple was constituted appointing respondent Nos.4 to 8 herein as Non-Hereditary Trustees and the name of petitioner No.2 was shown as nominated Ex-Officio Member. For reasons best known to him, respondent No.2 passed modification order dated 02.02.2022 in proceedings No.A4/3000/2020 constituting the 4 BVR,J W.P.No.21347 of 2022 Board of Non-Hereditary Trustees and appointing respondent Nos.4 to 8 as Non-Hereditary Trustees, but deleting the name of the petitioner as Ex-Officio Member. It is submitted that the modified order is in violation of Section 15 of the Act.
4. It is stated that registration of the subject temple under Section 43 of the Act is without following due process of law. It is further contended that notification dated 21.09.2020 issued by respondent No.2 calling for applications from interested persons for appointment of Trustee, was not affixed in all necessary places and also the same was not published in newspapers as per Rule 4 of the Appointment of Trustees Rules. Respondent No.3 called for antecedent report from the Inspector concerned and it shows that only five applications, which were recommended by the local MLA, were received. There is no publicity or publication of notification and the public including petitioner No.4 and others, who are qualified devotees and donors of the temple, do not have information to apply for trustee to the subject temple. The Inspector concerned submitted his report dated 21.01.2021, which is also not in accordance with law and Rules. As a formality, the Inspector submitted the report and respondent No.2- appointing authority kept the matter pending for one year and passed the impugned orders without nominating 5 BVR,J W.P.No.21347 of 2022 Archaka of the subject temple as ex-officio member of the Trust Board and, therefore, the impugned order is in violation of the provisions of the Act.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners D. Sudershan Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. Vedula Chitraleka, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 8.
6. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent Nos.4 to 8 were appointed on the recommendation of local MLA. That respondent No.2 has simply accepted the recommendations of the MLA and has not conducted any enquiry. Learned counsel also raised other contentions stating that there is violation of Section 15 and 29 of the Act. Further that respondent No.4 was having criminal background and his antecedents were not properly verified before the impugned proceedings were issued. Learned counsel has drawn attention of this Court to the MLA's letter dated 11.10.2020, whereunder a request was made to the Honourable Minister for Endowments to constitute Temple Committee with the names of respondent Nos.4 to 8.
7. Mr. Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 8, submitted that petitioner No.3 is the son of 6 BVR,J W.P.No.21347 of 2022 petitioner No.2 and he has already filed W.P.No.19013 of 2020 questioning the action of respondent No.2 in issuing notification dated 21.09.2020, calling for applications from interested persons for appointment as Trustees. The said writ petition is pending and by virtue of interim order dated 16.11.2020, Trust Board was constituted, however the same would be subject to outcome of the writ petition. Thus the petitioners have no locus standi to file the present writ petition. The averments in the writ affidavit that family of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 established the subject temple about 500 years back and that they are bearing the expenditure and doing daily poojapath in the temple have been denied in the counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos.4 to 8. Respondent No.2 has called for applications for appointment of Trusteeship vide notification in Form-I dated 21.09.2020 and pursuant thereto, respondent Nos.4 to 8 have submitted their candidature for such appointment. Upon due verification, respondent Nos.4 to 8 were appointed as Non-Hereditary Trustees. Petitioner No.2 was initially appointed as ex-officio member of the Trust Board in the capacity as Archaka of the temple. As petitioner No.2 was already functioning as Archaka in another temple of Lord Venkateswara situated at Quthbullapur Village, Avdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, the authorities 7 BVR,J W.P.No.21347 of 2022 issued revised proceedings dated 02.02.2022 deleting the name of petitioner No.2 as ex-officio member of the subject temple.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the judgment of this Court in Pagadala Pratap v. State of Andhra Pradesh1, wherein, at paragraph 38, this Court made the following observations:
"While public representatives, be they MLAs or Ministers, may be entitled to recommend persons whom they consider to be entitled for appointment as trustees of religious institutions, neither can they dictate that these persons be appointed as trustees nor can the competent authority surrender its discretion and abdicate its statutory duty of appointing only those persons as trustees who satisfy the conditions prescribed in Act 30 of 1987, and the Trustees Rules. Only those recommended by the Minister of Information and Pubic Relations, as forwarded to him by the local M.L.A, (other than the two who were found ineligible), have been blindly appointed as trustees without adhering to the statutory provisions of Act 30 of 1987 or the statutory rules i.e., the Trustees Rules, 1987. Appointing those recommended by the Minister as trustees is evidently at his dictates, and reflects surrender of discretion and abdication of duty by the competent authority. The impugned G.O, appointing only those recommended by the Minister for Information and Public Relations, as trustees without independent exercise of mind is ultra vires the provisions of Act 30 of 1987 and the Trustees Rules and must, therefore, be set aside."
9. By drawing comparision to the fact-situation in the aforesaid case, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that even in the present 1 2010 (5) ALD 1 8 BVR,J W.P.No.21347 of 2022 case, except for accepting the five names recommended by the local MLA, no exercise whatsoever has been initiated by the authorities for inviting applications from interested persons. All the five candidates (respondent Nos.4 to 8 herein), who were recommended by the local MLA, were appointed as Non-Hereditary Trustees to the subject temple. Thus, there is no application of mind.
10. The contention of learned Senior Counsel Mr. Vedula Srinivas that the petitioners have no locus standi is without merit. The petitioner No.2 admittedly was acknowledged as Archaka in the proceedings dated 25.01.2022 and nominated as Ex.officio member (which however was deleted in the revised proceedings dated 02.02.2022). There is no denial from the Endowments Department to the assertion of the petitioners that the temple was constructed by the forefathers of the petitioners and that they had been managing day-to-day affairs of the temple. Even in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents No.4 to 8, they have admitted that the name of the petitioner No.2 is shown as Employee Pujari in the register prepared under Section 43 of the Act. The petitioners claim that they are Hereditary Trustees/Archakas and doing poojapath and have renovated the temple. Thus, the petitioners have locus standig to institute this writ petition. Further the relief in W.P.No.19013 of 2020 is different 9 BVR,J W.P.No.21347 of 2022 from the relief sought in this writ petition and the pendency of the said writ petition and interim order dated 16.11.2020 therein will not have any bearing on this writ petition and would not preclude the petitioners from challenging the impugned proceedings herein.
11. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos.4 to 8, the averment in the writ affidavit that the names of respondent Nos.4 to 8 were recommended by the local MLA is not denied. So also there is no denial to the assertion of the petitioners that applications of the respondent Nos.4 to 8 were not submitted within statutory period of 20 days as prescribed under the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Appointment of Trustee Rules, 1987 (for short 'the Rules'); that the notice dated 21.09.2020 was not affixed in conspicuous places and not published in the newspapers as required under Form-I under Rule 4 of the Rules. The official respondents have not chosen to file counter to rebut the contentions of the petitioners that there was no proper publicity given by inviting applications from other interested candidates to be appointed as Non-hereditary Trustees.
12. There is no material placed before this Court to show that reasonable publicity was given pursuant to issuance of notification in Form-I dated 21.09.2020 and that the said notification was affixed in 10 BVR,J W.P.No.21347 of 2022 conspicuous places as per the Rules. Thus, appointment of respondent Nos.4 to 8 is contrary to the provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder. It is undisputed fact borne out from the record that except for accepting the recommendation of the local MLA, there is no other material before respondent No.2 to assess the merits and check the antecedents of respondent Nos.4 to 8 and their suitability to be appointed as Non-Hereditary Trustees of the subject temple. As held in Pagadala Pratap's case referred supra, the impugned proceedings are vitiated for the reason of legal malice, being contrary to the Act, more specifically Sections 15 and 17 and Rule 4(1) of the Rules and non application of mind, and therefore, the same are liable to be set aside.
13. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned proceedings No.A4/3000/2020 dated 02.02.2022 issued by respondent No.2. No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition stand closed.
____________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J September 5, 2022 VV