Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kopalle Hanumantha Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 7 May, 2025
1
APHC010142912025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3460]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT PETITION NO: 7251/2025
Between:
1. KOPALLE HANUMANTHA RAO, S/O LATE SRINIVASA RAO, AGED
ABOUT 57 YEARS, FOUNDER FAMILY MEMBER, ANDHRA
JATHEEYA VIDYA PARISHAD MACHILIPATNAM,KRISHNA
DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, ENDOWMENTS
DEPARTMENT, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI
AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT
GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT,
KAKINADA.
4. IMADAPATTULA DILEEP KUMAR, S/O LATE NAGESWARA RAO
AGED ABOUT NOT KNOW TO THE PETITIONER, R/O
KOBBARITHOTA, CHILAKALAPUDI, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA
DISTRICT.
5. THE ANDHRA JATEEYA VIDYA PARISHAD, MACHILIPATNAM,
KRISHNA DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
...RESPONDENT(S):
2
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. V V N NARAYANA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS
2. PULIPATI RADHIKA
The Court made the following:
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT PETITION No.7251 of 2025
ORDER:
1. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the Respondent No.3 in proposing to conduct enquiry against the Petitioner pursuant to the representation made by the Respondent No.4 vide Computer No.B2/516317/2015, dated 18.03.2025, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the power conferred and also contrary to the enquiries to be conducted.
2. The facts leading to filing of the present Writ Petition are as follows:-
3. The Respondent No.5 is an institution, which was established in the year 1907 by the grandfather of the Petitioner by name Sri Kopalle Hanumantha Rao Panthulugaru to impart and promote education literacy, scientific, technical and professional on national lines as mentioned in the Memorandum and Articles of Association. The society was registered as per the provisions of the Act XXI of 1860 of the Acts of the Viceroy and Governor General of India in Council (vide No.1/1911-12, dated 19.06.1911 of Deputy Registrar, Krishna District) and the institution was administered as per the provisions of the Societies Registration Act as specified in the Memorandum and Articles of Association to fulfill its founding objectives. 4
4. The institution has been registered under Section 7(b) of the Act 17 of 1966 by the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, Krishna District vide R.Dis.No.10576/1970, dated 10.05.1972 and the administration was taken over by the Endowments Department duly appointing an Executive Officer on 20.02.1988 and now it is under the administrative control of Commissioner, Endowments Department. It is stated that the Government of Andhra Pradesh had constituted a Committee to enquire into the affairs of the Respondent No. vide G.O.Ms.No.531, Revenue, dated 28.05.1987. The Committee conducted enquiry and a report was submitted pursuant to the enquiry by the Committee and the same was approved under the revitalization scheme vide G.O.Ms.No.655, Revenue (Endts.IV) Department, dated 11.07.1990.
5. On 23.08.1998 the Petitioner made an application to the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Vijayawada to recognize him as Founder Family Member of the subject institution as per Circular No.40/97 in Rc.No.L/36330/97, dated 04.10.1997. The Assistant Commissioner after conducting due enquiry declared the Petitioner as Founder Family Member of the Respondent No.5 institution vide Proceedings in Rc.No.A2/10654/98, dated 26.01.1999.
6. While so, a Revision Petition was filed by a third party vide Rc.No.53 of 1999 before the Regional Joint Commissioner, Kakinada against the orders of the Assistant Commissioner in respect of the 5 recognition of the Petitioner as Founder Family Member. While the Revision was pending adjudication, the Commissioner framed four charges against the Founder Family Member along with the Executive Officer.
7. On the basis of the charges framed, the Revision Petition was allowed on the ground that the person facing disciplinary charges cannot be continued as Founder Family Member. Parallely W.P.No.21417 of 2000 was filed questioning the disciplinary proceedings and the same was disposed of with a direction to conclude the enquiry into the charges within a period of two (2) months.
8. The Assistant Commissioner and Executive Officer of the Respondent No.2 were appointed as Enquiry Officers. Thereafter, the Commissioner appointed Regional Joint Commissioner, Kakinada to enquire into the charges framed against the Petitioner. Subsequently, the charges against the Petitioner were dropped vide Proceedings dated 15.02.2005. On 12.03.2005, the Petitioner was informed that he remains as Founder Family Member in view of the fact that the disciplinary proceedings against him were set-aside.
9. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed W.P.No.7632 of 2025 on the ground that the Executive Officer is acting independently without consulting the Founder Family Member. During the pendency of the said Writ Petition, the Executive Officer had changed and as changed Executive Officer was 6 acting in co-ordination with the Petitioner, the Writ Petition was closed recording the same on 08.04.2015.
10. While the Petitioner was continuing as Founder Family Member, a complaint was given by one Imadabattula Dileep Kumar (Respondent No.4), where allegations into the status of the Petitioner as Founder Family Member and his interference with the affairs of the Respondent No.5 were raised.
10. On the basis of the complaint received, the Respondent No.2 directed the Respondent No.3 to conduct a detailed enquiry and submit Para wise detailed report. Accordingly an enquiry was proposed to be conducted on 19.03.2025 at the institution premises. Questioning the same, the present Writ Petition is filed on the ground that the Petitioner cannot be subjected to repeated enquiries no enquiry can be initiated on the basis of an enquiry report obtained behind back of the Petitioner.
11. Heard Sri V.V.N. Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri T. Yatheendra Dev, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents.
12. The learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that there is no power to the District Collector to conduct enquiry in the scheme of Section 8 of the Act and only the Commissioner would conduct enquiry and therefore the report cannot be relied on to conduct enquiry against 7 the Petitioner. It was further contended that in the light of categorical Counter Affidavit filed by the Commissioner of Endowments as well as Respondent-State denying the status of Petitioner even before the enquiry has started reflects the formality of the proposed enquiry and the outcome is a foregone conclusion.
13. The learned Special Government Pleader in response would contend that the impugned proceedings are only intra departmental proceedings, which were conducted on the instructions of Respondent No.2. It is stated that the enquiry is only to find out the truth or otherwise or the allegations leveled against the Petitioner. The report is being examined and action against the Petitioner would be initiated after examining the preliminary report. It is also stated that a notice will be issued to the Petitioner in the event of any enquiry/action to be initiated as per the procedure prescribed under the Endowments Act and principles of natural justice would be adhered to.
14. It was contended that though the Counter Affidavits were filed denying the status of the Petitioner as Founder Family Member, the Special Government Pleader would submit that the averments made in the Counter Affidavit on merits of the claim of the Petitioner are only prima facie opinions were based on preliminary enquiry conducted and the same would be subject to the enquiry if any, to be initiated. 8
15. In response, the learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the only procedure that is contemplated is under Section 149 of the Act and there is no other procedure prescribed for conducting enquiry against the Petitioners.
16. The learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the procedure as per law would be followed in the event of any action to be taken against the Petitioner.
17. In the light of the submissions and the averments made in the Counter Affidavits, the Writ Petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the Respondent authorities to act in accordance with law and as per the procedure prescribed under the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious and Endowments Act. The contentions of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that successive enquiries cannot be maintained and all the other grounds are left open, to be urged in any proceedings, in the event they are initiated by the Respondent authorities.
18. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 07.05.2025 IS 9 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.7251 of 2025 Date: 07.05.2025 IS