Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
P.Chikkamath At Kari Basava Rajendra ... vs The Asst. Commissioner And Manager on 6 September, 2024
1
*HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
+WRIT PETITION No.6951 of 2019
Between:
# P. Chikkamath @ Kari Basava Rajendra Swamiji
W/o Shivajathayya Marakumbi
... Petitioner
And
$ The Asst. Commissioner & Manager
Sri Gavi Math Samsthanam, Uravakonda Town,
Anantapur town and 4 others
.... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 06.09.2024
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments?
- Yes -
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law
Reporters/Journals
- Yes -
3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair
copy of the Judgment?
- Yes -
___________________________________
DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
2
* THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
+WRIT PETITION No.6951 of 2019
% 06.09.2024
Between:
# P. Chikkamath @ Kari Basava Rajendra Swamiji
W/o Shivajathayya Marakumbi
... Petitioner
And
$ The Asst. Commissioner & Manager
Sri Gavi Math Samsthanam, Uravakonda Town,
Anantapur town and 4 others
.... Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri G. Seshadri
Counsel for Respondents: AG.P for Endowments
Sri A. Sreedhar
Sri G. Ramana Rao, SC for Endowments
<Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
3
APHC010160022019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 6951/2019
Between:
P.Chikkamath @ Kari Basava Rajendra Swamiji ...PETITIONER
AND
The Asst Commissioner And Manager and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. SESHADRI GOALLA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. G RAMANA RAO (SC FOR ENDOWMENTS RAYALASEEMAREGION)
2. A SREEDHAR
3. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP)
The Court made the following:
ORDER :
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:
"....to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No 4 in issuing Memo No 37022/90/2018, dated 30.04.2019, as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 1987 and for a consequential direction to R.1 to continue payment of honorarium to the petitioner and pass...."4
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner herein is the Uttaradhikari of Sri Gavi Math Samsthanam, Uravakonda Town, Anantapur District. He was appointed in the year 1997 and discharging his duties with religious faith and fervor. The 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 17.10.2017 accorded permission to 1st respondent to pay Rs.12,000/- to petitioner towards honorarioum. The pious devotees of the Math filed W.P.No.23528 of 2018 before this Court against the Math, which was disposed of with a direction to take further action in accordance with law. It is further stated that the 1st respondent issued proceedings dated 17.5.2019 that the Honorarium of Rs.12,000/- is stopped to the petitioner as per the orders in Memo of the 4th respondent. It is further stated that the Mathadipathi objected the payment of honorarium. The observations of the 4th respondent are contra to the budgetary allocations of the Math vide D.Dis.No.C.No.DP/COE-/8/2017, dated 20.04.2017. Further, the order of the 4th respondent authority is illegal and arbitrary. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed.
3. The counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent denying all the allegations made in the petition. It is further stated that there is no provision for payment of honorarium to a Uttaradhikari from Mutt funds either in Old Act 17/66 or in present Act 30/87. The Uttardhaikari is only a servant to the Matadhipathi but not to Sri Gavi Mutt Samstanam. It is further stated that the order issued by the 4th 5 respondent is not an impugned order. It is a righteous and correct order as per provisions of the Act 30/87. It is further stated that the honorarium amount to be paid to Uttaradhikari cannot come under establishment charges of a mutt Religious Staff since the post of Uttaradhikari is not come under the mutt religious establishment. He is no way concerned to Mutt Administration. He is only to Swamiji Religious function. Hence there is no budget allocation specially under the Head of remuneration to Uttaradhikari in the budget allocation for the year 2018-2019 and 2019-2020.
4. The counter affidavit has also been filed by the 2nd respondent. While denying the allegations made in the petition, inter alia, contended that, this respondent vide proceedings in Rc.No.DP1/25032/3/2017 dated 17.10.2017 had issued instructions to the 1st respondent to pay monthly honorarium of Rs.12,000/- per month from the funds of the subject Math to the petitioner and that he should identify the subject Math lands situated at Karnataka State and to visit all the Revenue offices and to verify the Revenue Records whether the Math lands located at Karnataka State stand in the name of the subject Math, or not if not, to take necessary steps to include the lands in the name of the subject Math in Revenue records of Karnataka State under the authorization of the 1st respondent and also requested 1st respondent to take necessary action in this matter. It is further stated that earlier budget allocations have been made to the subject Math by 2nd 6 respondent vide proceedings in Rc.No.DP2/25032/06/2018, dated 17.07.2018 wherein there is no mention of honorarium to the petitioner for the grant of Rs.12,000/- per month. It is true that there is no provision in A.P.Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 30/1987 for payment of honorarium to the Uttaradhikari post. But the 2nd respondent issued direction for the sake of protection of the properties of subject Math which are located outside the State of A.P. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the writ petition as there are no merits.
5. Heard Sri G. Seshadri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments; Sri A.Sreedhar and Sri G. Ramana Rao, learned Standing Counsels appearing for the respondents.
6. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the averments made in the petition, submits that, the 2nd respondent recognized the petitioner nomination as successor to Uttaradhikari of the Gavi Matt Samsthanam, Uravakonda town, Anantapur District and the entire process took under the Mathadipathi of Matt. He further submits that Mathadipathi used to pay Rs.8000/- per month from the Padukanukas received by the Mathadipathi to the petitioner till 3.2.2016. He further submits that the actions of the Mathadipathi are not in consonance with the provisions of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 1987 (for short "the Act") , as the 7 Mathadipathi is not maintaining the regular accounts and receipts of Padukanukas and personal gifts of the property which are offered to him as Mathadhipathi besides Roc No.48 of 2016 dated 09.02.2018, the 2nd respondent directed the Special Director, Land Protection Cell to conduct an enquiry and called for the report on a complaint against the Peethadhipathi/Mathadipathi. He further submits that, it is well known to one and all that the Mathadipathi is causing damage to the very purpose, object and formation of the Matt. Pursuant to the misdeeds of the Mathadipathi, W.P.No.23528 of 2018 was filed by a third party before this Court and the same was disposed of with a direction to take further action strictly in accordance with law. However, the respondents instead of taking action as per Act 30 of 1987 are continuing the Mathadipathi in flagrant violation of the provisions of the special enactment.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the 2 nd respondent issued instructions to the 1st respondent to pay monthly honorarium Rs.12,000/- to the petitioner form the funds of subject Matt and that he should identify the Matt lands situated in the Karnataka state and licensing with revenue officials in the said State and protect the Matt lands. However, the 4th respondent without authority by an order dated 30.4.2019 passed an order and directed to stop honorarium to the petitioner and pursuant to the said order the 1st respondent stopped honorarium. He further submits that the budget allocations for the year 8 2017 onwards provided honorarium payable to the petitioner to a tune of Rs.2,00,000/- p.a. However, the respondents are acting in arbitrary manner basing on the baseless allegations of the Mathadipathi, despite the said illegal and arbitrary actions of the respondents and without any honorarium the petitioner still go around the Matt properties to safeguard the same and instrumental in Hindu Dharma pracharam with the help of some of the devotees. Therefore the action of the respondents in non- payment of honorarium has neither reasonable nexus nor there is an intelligible differentia in their actions and the impugned actions of the respondents' warrants interference.
8. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents while reiterating the averments made in the petition, submits that, there is no provision for payment of honorarium to a Uttaradhikari from Mutt funds either in Old Act 17/66 not present Act 30/87. He submits that the order issued by the 4th respondent is not an impugned order. It is a righteous and correct order as per provisions of the Act 30/87, but whereas, the petitioner is eligible for payment of honorarium from out of the funds received by way of Padakanukas. But the petitioner is well known that honorarium has to be claimed from Padakanukas. But he has no face to go to Swamiji and to request for honorarium since the petitioner is a guilty of breach of trust or mis- appreciation of Mutt properties. He further submits that the honorarium amount to be paid to Uttaradhikari cannot come under establishment 9 charges of a Mutt Religious staff since the post of Uttaradhikari is not come under the Mutt religious establishment. He is no way concerned to Mutt administration and he is only concerned to Swamiji Religious function. Hence there is no budget allocation specifically under the head of remuneration to Uttaradhikari in the budget allocation for the year 2018-19 and 2019-2020. Therefore, learned Standing Counsel prayed to dismiss the writ petition as there are no merits.
9. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader while denying the allegations made in the petition, submits that, as per Section 50(1) of the Endowments Act 30/1987 the Mathadipathi shall be entitled to spend the Padakanukas received by him, as his discretion for any purpose which is connected with the objects of the Math and propagation of the Hindu Dharma and further there is no custom and usage with regard to payment of honorarium to Uttaradhikari of the subject Math from the funds of the Math as per the provisions of the Endowments Act and therefore the Commissioner of Endowments is requested to stop the payment of honorarium to the petitioner and follow the provisions of Section 50(1) of the Endowments Act 30/1987. He further submits that the Section 50(1) of the Endowments Act 30/1987 envisages that "The Mathadipathi shall maintain regular accounts of receipts of Padakanukas or other Personal gifts of property made to him as the Head of the Math and he shall be entitled to spend, at his discretion for any purpose which is connected with the objects of the 10 Math and propagation of Hindu Dharma" and it is submitted that as per records of the subject math there was no custom and usage with regard to payment of honorarium to Uttaradhikari of the subject math. Therefore the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed as there are no merits.
10. As seen from the proceedings of the 2nd respondent vide Rc.No.DP1/ 25032/3/2017, dated 17.10.2017, wherein, the 2nd respondent accorded permission to the Assistant Commissioner & Manager Sri Gavi Mutta, Uravakonda, Anantapur District to pay Rs.12,000/- per month to Dr. Sri Kari Basava Rajendra Matha Swamiji, Uttaradhikari, towards Honororium from the Mutt funds.
11. Further, on a perusal of the impugned order dated 30.4.2019, wherein it was mentioned that the Mathadhipathi have objected the same and given a letter to stop the payment. But orders were issued to continue payment. It was also mentioned that as per Section 50(1) of the Act 1987 the Matadhipathi shall be entitled to spend the Padakanukas received by him, at his discretion for any purpose which is connected with the objects of the Mutt and propagation of the Hindu Dharma. Further, there is no custom and usage with regard to payment of honorarium to Uttaradhikari of the subject Mutt from the funds of the Mutt as per the provisions of the Endowment Act.
11
12. On a perusal of the material on record, it would show that, admittedly, the 2nd respondent issued instructions to the 1st respondent to pay monthly honorarium Rs.12,000/- per month to the petitioner from the funds of the subject Matt and that he should identify the Matt lands situated in the Karnataka State and licensing with revenue officials in the said State and protect the Matt lands. Moreover, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, without any authority, the 4th respondent has issued the impugned proceedings and directed the 1st respondent to stop honorarium, which is illegal and arbitrary.
13. Further, as seen from the order of the Office of the Commissioner, Endowments Department in D.Dis.No.C.No.DP/COE- /8/2017, dated 20.4.2017, wherein it is observed that, the Assistant Commissioner, Sri Gavi Math, Uravakonda, estimated the income and expenditure for the financial year 2017-18 requested to approve in furtherance of Endowments Act 30/1987 under Section 57(1)(c) and G.O.Rt.No.1453, dated 01.10.2009 wherein the Govt. of AP, orders approved for some expenses, wherein, at Sl.No.14, it was mentioned about "Mathadhipati/Uttaradhikari Honorarium's sanctioned amount as 2,00,000/-". It is further observed that the 1st respondent vide letter, dated 19.09.2018, as per directions of the 2nd respondent, implemented and paid the Honorarium to the Uttaradhikari of subject Matt at Rs.12,000/- per month from 07/2018 onwards.
12
14. In view of the foregoing discussion and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the budget allocations for the year 2017 onwards provide honorarium payment to the petitioner, however upto an extent of Rs.2,00,000/- per annum, despite the respondents are not paying the same to the petitioner is illegal. Therefore, this Court inclined to dispose of the writ petition while declaring the action of the 4th respondent as illegal and arbitrary.
15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned Memo vide Memo No.37022/90/2018, dated 30.04.2019 issued by the 4th respondent. Further, the 1st respondent is directed to continue the payment of the honorarium at Rs.12,000/- per month, however upto an extent of Rs.2,00,000/- per annum, to the petitioner, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
16. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.
_________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Date : 06 -09-2024 Gvl 13 HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITON No.6951 of 2019 Date :06.9.2024 Gvl