Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Suryadevara Jayaprada, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 21 February, 2025
*HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
+WRIT PETITION No.13629 of 2023
Between:
#Suryadevara Jayaprada, ...PETITIONER
AND
$The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 21.02.2025 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.13629 of 2023 % 21.02.2025 # Between:
#Suryadevara Jayaprada ...PETITIONER
AND
$ The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati ! Counsel for Respondents: GP for Endowments Padmavathi Padnavis <Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred: 1. AIR 1958 SC 255
2. AIR 1954 SC 282
3. AIR 1972 SC 1586
4. AIR 19660 SC 100
5. AIR 1920 Bom 67
6. AIR 1925 PC 139
7. 2010 SCC OnLine Mad 5985 3 APHC010263282023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3310] (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 13629/2023 Between:
Suryadevara Jayaprada, ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. VENKATESWARA RAO GUDAPATI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. PADMAVATHI PADNAVIS
2. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS
The Court made the following Order:
The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:
".....to issue an order or direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the th respondent authorities in reconstruction of the 5 respondent temple situated at Vadlamudi village, Chebrolu mandal, Guntur District, on the pretext of Punah Prathista by demolishing the existing temple as arbitrary, illegal, null and void and against the norms of public policy and principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India......."4
2. Brief facts of the case are that the 5th respondent-temple has been established more than 100 years back for which a trust has been executed on 22.06.1923 by appointing one Suryadevara Venkatappaya as a hereditary trustee by Chimakurthy Yellamandhu and said Venkatappaya has been appointed as hereditary trustee, since the said date till his death and after his death, his wife Subamma has been functioning as hereditary trustee there after the Subbamma has acted as trustee and due to old age, she has filed an application before the Commissioner, Endowments for appointment of Suryadevara Hariprasada Rao as hereditary trustee and accordingly the Assistant Commissioner vide its proceedings dated 02.01.1981 has appointed Suryadevara Hariprasada Rao as hereditary trustee. After the death of Suryadevara Hariprasada Rao on 09.06.2012, his wife Suryadevara Jayprada has been continuing as hereditary trustee for 5th respondent temple. In the year 2017, she made an application through his grandson for appointing her grandson to appoint him as hereditary trustee, surprisingly, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings dated 24.09.2021 vide Rc.No.D3/14021(51)/10/2018 appointing Chimakurthy Venkateswara Rao as hereditary trustee for 5th respondent temple on the ground that he is declared as hereditary trustee vide Rc.No.A2-1166/66, dated 18.02.1966 and similarly passed proceedings dated 24.09.2021, vide Memo Rc.No.D3/14021(51)/10/2018, dated 24.09.2021 that there is no concept of guardian to trustee under the Act. Questioning the proceedings dated 24.09.2021 appointing a third person as a hereditary 5 trustee, the petitioner filed W.P.No.25986 of 2021 and this Court disposed off the said writ petition vide order dated 20.04.2022 setting aside the impugned proceedings and further directed the respondent authorities therein to consider to act upon the representation. Till date, the respondent authorities failed to act upon the petitioner's representation in pursuance of the 5th respondent temple. While things stood thus, the Executive Officer of the 5th respondent temple is making efforts to demolish the temple and reconstruct the same by moving the deity and sanctorum from its original position to Flagstaff (Dwajasthambham) of the existing temple. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. This Court, vide order, dated 30.05.2023 has granted interim order in I.A.No.1 of 2023 reads as follows:
".....
6. Accordingly, IA No.1 of 2023 is allowed and status quo obtaining as on date th with regard to the 5 respondent-temple shall be maintained till 13.06.2023.
7. List the matter on 13.06.2023.
8. In the meanwhile, the respondent authorities shall file expert's report and counter affidavit if any."
4. The 2nd respondent filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the writ petition and stated that the 5th respondent temple was initially published under Section 6(C)(ii) of the Endowments Act 30/87 and subsequently reclassified and published under Section 6(b)(ii) of the Endowments Act 30/1987 and now the same is under the administrative control of the 4th respondent. It is further stated that the 5th respondent temple was constructed more than 100 years ago by the side of R & B Road leads 6 from Guntur to Tenali which is a small structure admeasuring 5.4 X 5.4 feet of Garbhalayam and 8.6 X 8.6 feet of Antharalayam approximately and having small doorways on two sides for entry and exit with measurements of only 2.5 feet width and 5.2 feet height. The said doorways are not at all sufficient and fit for present day circumstances. One cannot enter into the temple straight away without bending his/her head. It is further stated that the villagers and devotees submitted their representation dated 10.08.2022 to the Executive Officer of the 5th respondent temple stating that the temple was constructed about 150 years ago and is in dilapidated condition and the said temple is now lower than the State road from Guntur to Tenali, which is adjacent to the Temple and as such there is every possibility of rain water entering into the temple and requested to make the temple wider according to Vaastu, Agamasastra and with the approval of expert diviners. Accordingly, the Executive Officer of the 5th respondent temple has addressed a letter to Deputy Executive Engineer (for short "DEE"), Endowments Department, Guntur to prepare plans and estimates. Accordingly, the DEE has prepared plans and estimates showing that the total cost for reconstructions comes to Rs.1.56 crores. Out of which, the devotees come forward to pay an amount of Rs.56.00 lakhs as donations for reconstruction of temple. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent vide Rc.No.COE/1295/2022-25, dated 25.01.2023 accorded administrative sanction as financial aid is sanctioned from CGF to a tune of Rs.1.00 crore for reconstruction of subject temple. The 2nd respondent vide 7 Rc.No.S/COE-29/11/2023, dated 25.01.2023 approved the submitted plans for reconsruction of temple. Thereafter, the Superintending Engineer, Endowments Department, Kurnool has accorded technical sanction vide Rc.No.SE/MZ-II/Endts/Kurnool/2023, dated 04.02.2023 with instructions to Executive Officer of the subject temple to call for tenders through e-procurement and execute the work duly following the rules. While so, the petitioner filed this writ petition and obtained interim orders. In pursuance of the interim orders, the Executive Officer of the 5th respondent temple obtained expert report from B.Panduranga Rao, Dean student affairs and consultancy, V.R.Siddardha Engineering College, Vijayawada dated 23.06.2023, who inspected the 5th respondent temple on requisition of its Executive Officer. It is further stated that the 5th respondent has submitted a revised plan proposals through the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur, vide Lr.in Rc.No.A5/5389/2022, dated 05.09.2023 for reconstruction of the 5th respondent temple without shifting the existing Idol/Deity. Basing on the said report, the Sthapathy in the office of the 2nd respondent has verified the revised plan and agreed on 07.09.2023 for reconstruction of 5th respondent temple without shifting the existing Moolavirat Idol/Deity.
5. The 5th respondent filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the writ petition and stated that in view of passage of time, the road levels increased and hence the surrounding area of the temple became low 8 lying in some areas and in rainy season, the water from the road flows into the temple surroundings and causing hurdles to the devotees. Even the Garbhalayam also is just one foot a head from the road area. It is further stated that the petitioner raised the objection regarding the proposed reconstruction without having any valid grounds and the petitioner has no locus standi to question about the reconstruction of the temple. It is further stated that there is no compound wall at all to the 5th respondent and further another temple of Goddess Prasanna Kalika Ammavaru, was constructed in recent times by private persons, on the backside of the 5th respondent temple and hence there is no sufficient space for moving around the 5th respondent temple by the vehicles of devotees and prabhalu at the time of Maha Sivarathri. There is sufficient vacant site situated on Eastern side of the present structure of the temple and the same can be utilized by constructing new structure moving to eastern side which is permissible as per vaastu sastra also. Further, the entire proposal was verified and approved by the Competent State Authority of Endowments Department on vaastu sastra and construction of temples i.e., "Stapathi" who is the higher authority and who personally visited the temple on two occasions and verified the temple structure and after perusal of all the aspects approved the proposed construction.
9
6. The reply affidavit filed by the petitioner stating that the length of Garbhalayam is also being changed as per the plan annexed, which is also beyond the scope and the place of the deity is also being changed as per the plan annexed, which shows that the respondents are not following the procedure. It is further stated that in the report dated 10.08.2023, the Trustees have not accepted to move the Garbhalayam from its present position to the new position. But contrary to the same, the official respondent authorities have agreed for reconstruction of the temple by moving the present Garbhalayam as per the report dated 10.08.2023. It is further stated that the respondent authorities have not followed the rules under AP Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments and Renovation Committee Rules, 1987 vide G.O.Ms.No.649, Revenue (Endowments-I) Department, dated 30.06.1989. It is further stated that at the time of construction of temple, as per Kashyapa Silpam, the stars of the trustees, vaasthu have to go together and contrary to the same, the respondent authorities are trying to reconstruct the temple without even taking into consideration of the stars of the trustees, vaasthu and Kashyapa Silpa Sastram.
7. Heard Mr.G.Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments, for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 as well as Ms.Padmavathi Padnavis, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6.
10
8. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petition, submits that, the respondent authorities are trying to move the idol of the lord Sri Balakoteswara Swami and his sanctorum to another place on the pretext of Punah Prathishta is nothing but construction of a new temple by demolishing the old existing temple, which is nothing but disregard and disrespect of ancient Hindu heritage cultural values since decades and also affecting the devotees beliefs. He further submits that according to the Dharma Sastra, with the punah-prathishta (reconstruction of the images in temples) and Jirnoddhara only, when the image of the deity and sanctorum are polluted and power of the god seizes and dwell then only there is purpose of re-consecration of image of temples. In the present case, in fact, the structural condition of the present temple is in good condition and the deity has never been polluted till date and the devotees have the utmost divine belief and devotion towards the 5th respondent temple. Now the action of the respondent authorities in trying to reconstruct the temple by changing the position of the deity and sanctorum is against the belief of the devotees and against the Hindu culture and sentiment. It is further submitted that the Apex Court and also as per the Hindu Vedas, the permanent removal of the image of the deity and sanctorum without unavoidable necessity is against Hindu sentiment and also violative of articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. He further submits that, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 26.05.2023 to the respondents not to demolish the present temple nor change 11 the Sanctorum of the deity from one place to another as it is against the Hindu belief and customs. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.
9. Per Contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader while reiterating the contents made in the counter affidavit, submits that, the petitioner is not the member of Founder Family of the subject temple and the petitioner was never recognized or declared as member of Founder Family of the subject temple. The petitioner's representation to declare her as Member of Founder Family was rejected by the 2nd respondent, which is not relevant to the present writ petition. He further submits that the petitioner is failed to place the material document to show that the competent authority has declared or recognized her as member of founder family of the 5th respondent temple or to act as founder trustee to the temple. Hence, the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present writ petition challenging the action of respondent authorities regarding reconstruction of the temple. He further submits that the temple is not at all private temple belongs to the family of the petitioner and it is a public temple and the deity is also not Swayambhu and installed idol and which can be moved as per Aagama Sasthras in the larger public interest and it is not a violation of Aagama Principles. He further submits that, in view of interim orders passed in this writ petition, the respondent authorities could not proceed further to finalize the tender process and to commence reconstruction 12 work of the temple and that the CGF grant may be lapsed due to passage of time in case not shown progress of reconstruction work of the temple. Therefore, learned Assistant Government Pleader prays to dismiss the writ petition.
10. Perused the record.
11. On a perusal of the material on record, this Court observed that, the issue which is required to consider, is the permissibility of such relocation of Moolavirat, i.e., the main deity vis-à-vis the permissibility under the religious practices without violating and offending the faith of the devotees and diluting the spirituality and belief in "Sri Balakoteswara Swami" that he will fulfil their wishes.
12. The principle on the subject has been dealt with and delineated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Sri Venkataramana Devaru and others v. State of Mysore and others 1, while discussing as to what is a matter of religion within the protection of Article 26(b) of the Constitution, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the judgment rendered in Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar 2, wherein it was held that "it embraced not merely matters of doctrine and belief 1 AIR 1958 SC 255 2 AIR 1954 SC 282 13 pertaining to the religion but also the practice of it, or to put in terms of Hindus theology, not merely its Gnana but also its Bhakti and Karma Kandas."
13. It was settled in Sri Venkataramana Devaru (supra) that the matters of religion in Article 26(b) include even practices which are regarded by the community as part of its religion and that it has to be considered whether exclusion of a person from entering into a temple for worship is a matter of religion according to Hindu Ceremonial Law. It was held therein that there has been difference of opinion among the writers as to whether image worship had a place in the religion of the Hindus, as revealed in the Vedas; on the one hand, we have hymns in praise of Gods, and on the other, we have highly philosophical passages in the Upanishads describing the Supreme Being as omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent and transcending all names and forms. When we come to the Puranas, we find a marked change. The conception had become established of Trinity of Gods, Brahma, Vishnu and Siva as manifestations of the three aspects of creation, preservation and destruction attributed to the Supreme Being in the Upanishads. The Supreme Court, for example, quoted the passage in the Taittiriya Upanishad, Brigu Valli, First Anuvaka, which reads as under:
"That from which all beings are born, by which they live and into which they enter and merge."
The Gods have distinct forms ascribed to them and their worship at home and in temples is ordained as certain means of attaining salvation. These injunctions have had such a powerful hold over the minds of the people that daily worship of the deity in temple came to be regarded as one of the obligatory duties of a Hindu. It was during this period that temples were 14 constructed all over the country dedicated to Vishnu, Rudra, Devi, Skanda, Ganesha and so forth, and worship in the temple can be said to have become the practical religion of all sections of the Hindus ever since. With the growth in importance of temples and of worship therein, more and more attention came to be devoted to the ceremonial law relating to the construction of temples, installation of idols therein and conduct of worship of the deity, and numerous are the treatises that came to be written for its exposition. These are known as Agamas, and there are as many as 28 of them relating to the Saiva temples, the most important of them being the Kamikagama, the Karanagama and the Suprabhedagama, while the Vikhanasa and the Pancharatra are the chief Agamas of the Vaishnavas. These Agamas, contain elaborate rules as to how the temple is to be constructed, where the principal deity is to be consecrated, and where the other Devatas are to be installed and where the several classes of worshippers are to stand and worship."
14. In His Holiness Srimad Perarulala Ethiraja Ramanuja Jeeyar Swami etc. v. the State of T.N. 3 , a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court would observe that institution of temple worship has an ancient history and according to Dr. Kane, temples of deities had existed even in the 4th or 5th century B.C. (See History of Dharmasastra Vol. II, Part II, p.710). With the construction of temples the institution of Archakas also came into existence, the Archakas being professional men who made their livelihood by attending on the images. Just when the cult of worship of Siva and Vishnu started and developed into two distinct cults is very difficult to say, but there can be no doubt that in the times of the Mahabharata these cults were separately developed and there was keen rivalry between them to such an extent that the Mahabharata and some of the Puranas endeavoured to inculcate a spirit of synthesis by impressing that there was no difference between the two deities. With the establishment of temples and the institution 3 AIR 1972 SC 1586 15 of Archakas, treatises on rituals were compiled and they are known as "Agamas". The authority of these Agamas is recognised in Sri Venkataramana Devaru (supra).
15. It was also observed therein that, where the temple was to be constructed as per directions of the Agamas, the idol had to be consecrated in accordance with an elaborate and complicated ritual accompanied by chanting of mantras and devotional songs appropriate to the deity were all provided in the Agamas. On the consecration of the image in the temple the Hindu worshippers believe that the Divine Spirit has descended into the image and from then on the image of the deity is fit to be worshipped. It is believed that when a congregation of worshippers participates in the worship a particular attitude of aspiration and devotion is developed and confers great spiritual benefit. The second object is to preserve the image from pollution, defilement or desecration. It is part of the religious belief of a Hindu worshipper that when the image is polluted or defiled the Divine Spirit in the image diminishes or even vanishes. That is a situation which every devotee or worshipper looks upon with horror. Dr Kane has quoted the Brahmapurana on the topic of Punah-pratistha (Re-consecration of images in temples) at p.904 of his History of Dharmasastra referred to above. The Brahmapurana says that "when an image is broken into two or is reduced to particles, is burnt, is removed from its pedestal, is insulted, has ceased to be worshipped, is touched by beasts 16 like donkeys or falls on impure ground or is worshipped with mantras of other deities or is rendered impure by the touch of outcastes and the like -- in these ten contingencies, God ceases to indwell therein".
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also observed that protection of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution is not limited to matters of doctrine. They extend also to acts done in furtherance of religion and, therefore, they contain a guarantee for rituals and observances, ceremonies and modes of worships which are integral parts of the religion.
17. In Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale v. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi and others 4 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted with approval a judgment rendered by the Bombay High Court in Hari Raghunath Patvaedhan5, wherein it was held that "the manager of a public temple has no right to remove the image from the old temple and install it in another new building." The Hon'ble Supreme Court noted the interesting feature that in the case before the Bombay High Court, Dr.P.V.Kane, who is considered to be an authority on religious text relating to Agamas, in his course of argument, stated as follows:
"According to the Pratishtha-Mayukha of Nilkantha and other ancient works an image is to be removed permanently only in case of unavoidable necessity, such as where the current of a river carries away the image. Here the image is intact. It is only the temple that is dilapidated. For repairing it, the image need not necessarily be removed. Even if it may be necessary to remove the image, that will be only temporarily. The manager has under 4
AIR 19660 SC 100 5 AIR 1920 Bom 67 17 Hindu law no power to effect permanent removal of an image in the teeth of opposition from a large number of the worshippers. In the instances cited by the appellant, worshippers had consented to the removal. Permanent removal of an image without unavoidable necessity is against Hindu sentiment."
18. After quoting the above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court noted that the case is an authority for the proposition that the idol cannot be removed permanently to another place, because that would be tantamount to establishing a new temple. However, if the public agreed to a temporary removal, it could be done for a valid reason.
19. In Pramatha Nath Mullick v. Pradyumna Kumar Mullick and another 6 , the issue was whether a deed of trust creating a temple also created an injunction against removal of the deity. The Privy Council analyzed this provision and stated that the last condition made the idol immovable, except upon providing for the dedicatee another Thakur Bari of the same or larger value. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has reproduced the same in Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi (supra) which is as under:
"The true view of this is that the will of the idol in regard to location must be respected. If, in the course of a proper and unassailable administration of the worship of the idol by the Shebait, it be thought that a family idol should change its location, the will of the idol itself, expressed through his guardian, must be given effect to."
20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi (supra) further observed that their Lordships ordered the appointment of a disinterested next friend, who was to commune with the deity and decide what 6 Air 1925 PC 139 18 course should be adopted, and later the instructions of the deity vouchsafed to that representative were carried out.
21. In Chockalingam v. Nambi Pandiyan and others7, wherein a single Judge of the Madras High Court relied upon Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi (supra) wherein it was held that idol of Lord Shiva cannot be removed permanently to another place, because, that would tantamount to establishment of a new Temple, but however, if the public agreed to temporarily remove the Idol, it can be done for valid reasons and in the present case, there is no document to show that the removal was only temporary and there is also no document to show that the public agreed for temporary removal. The learned single Judge of Madras High Court, thus, concluded that idol cannot be removed.
22. In the case at hand, the relocation/re-consecration of the idol/deity of "Sri Balakoteswara Swami" is a proposed not for any reason approved in the Dharmasastra, but for providing comfort and convenience to the public and devotees. With regard to the plea of structural weakness of the existing temple, which is raised by the respondents, this Court notices that except for "Expert Inspection report, dated 23.06.2023" issued by a private architect, no material is filed to justify the plea that the existing structure is weak and likely to collapse. Even the report, dated 23.06.2023, does not state 7 2010 SCC OnLine Mad 5985 19 that there is an imminent threat of the existing structure collapsing. The relocation of the position of deity and sanctorum is against the belief of the devotees and against the Hindu Culture and sentiment.
23. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on considering the submissions of both the learned counsels and upon perusing the entire material on record, this Court is inclined to allow the writ petition, directing the respondents not to relocate/shift the idol/deity of "Sri Balakoteswara Swami" from the sanctum sanctorum of the temple as existing now, situated at Vadlamudi village, Chebrolu Mandal, Guntur district.
24. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.
25. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________ Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J Date : 21-02-2025 BMS