Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Pavani Sreedhara Rao vs The Government Of A.P., Revenue ... on 23 February, 1993
Equivalent citations: 1993(3)ALT620
JUDGMENT S.V. Maruthi, J.
1. As the Writ Appeal and Writ Petition are inter-connected, they were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Writ Appeal No. 456 of 1987 arises out of a judgment of the learned single Judge dismissing W.P No. 531 of 1980.
3. One Pavani Sridhara Rao filed W.P. No. 531 of 1980 aggrieved by the Memo dated 30-12-78 of the 1st respondent, confirming the orders of the 2nd respondent dated 30-5-78. The facts leading to the said petition are that a saintly person by name Tummala Venugopala Swamy came to the village of the petitioner and expressed his desire to engage himself in peaceful meditation. Petitioner gave him a site and constructed an Ashram in the land belonging to the petitioner in S. No. 201 of Mogilicherla village with the donation of one B. China Meera Setty. On 6-5-1976 Venugopala Swamy passed away. A samadhi was constructed in the place of Ashram which became a centre for pilgrimage, which is known as Sri Dattatreya Swamy Mandiram. A total area of three acres of land has been dedicated for the said purpose by the petitioner.
4. The respondent by an order dated 30-5-78, appointed an Executive Officer for this Sri Dattatreya Mandiram. Aggrieved by the appointment of an Executive Officer to the Mandiram, petitioner filed a revision before the Government who dismissed the same, against which, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 531/1980. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Hence the Writ Appeal before us.
5. The main contentions urged before the learned Single Judge were, firstly, that the Executive Officer was appointed without any notice to the petitioner and he was appointed as a hereditary trustee by order dated 29-3-79 and secondly as per Sub-section 2(a) of Section 27 of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966, in the case of any institution whose annual income is not less than rupees ten thousand but does not exceed rupees two lakhs, the Commissioner has only discretionary power to appoint an Executive Officer for such institution. The learned Single Judge rejected both the contentions holding that Section 27 of Act, 1966 does not contemplate any notice to be issued to the hereditary trustee before an Executive Officer is appointed. Holding as above, the W.P. was dismissed.
6. Subsequent to the judgment of this Court dated 18-2-87 in the above W.P., the 4th respondent issued Proceedings Re. No. A4/2517/87 dated 29-6-87 directing the Executive Officer of the Mandiram to take over charge of the temple from the petitioner, aggrieved by which, he has filed W.P. No. 10016 of 1987.
7. Since the Writ Petition was filed during the pendency of the Writ Appeal, both were heard together and disposed of.
8. The main contention of Sri J.V. Suryanarayana is that Section 27 of the A.P. Charitable Hindu Religious and Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 (hereinafter called 'the old Act') provides that in the case of any charitable or religious institution or endowment whose annual income is not less than rupees ten thousand but does not exceed rupees two lakhs, the Commissioner may appoint an Executive Officer for such institution, whereas under the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (hereinafter called as 'the new Act') Government may constitute not more than three charitable or religious institutions or endowments each of whose annual income is rupees fifty thousand but does not exceed rupees one lakh into such groups as may be prescribed. Therefore, he contends that where the income of the temple is less than rupees fifty thousand, there is no provision for appointment of an executive officer. As such, the appointment made under the old Act will continue provided there is no inconsistency between the provisions of the old Act and the new Act. Since there is no provision for appointment of an executive officer in respect of a temple whose income is less than rupees fifty thousand, under the new Act, the Executive Officer already appointed ceases to function. Therefore, the executive officer cannot be continued. Further, under Section 29 of the new Act, Government has to constitute three temples into one group and in respect of that group alone, they can appoint an executive officer. In the instant case, there is no such grouping of temples. He also invited our attention to Section 155 of the new Act, under which, repeal of 1966 Act does not affect all rules made, notifications or certificates issued, orders passed, decisions made, proceedings taken and other things done by any authority or officer under the repealed Act, provided they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the new Act, namely, Act, 1987. Since the new Act does not provide for appointment of executive officer in respect of institutions whose income is less than rupees fifty thousand, the executive officer already appointed under the old Act will cease to function.
9. The learned Government Pleader supported the order of the learned Single Judge.
10. The question therefore is whether the executive officer appointed under the old Act will cease to function automatically after the commencement of the new Act.
11. The A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, repealed the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966. Section 29 of the new Act provides for appointment and duties of Executive Officer. The Government under Section 29 of the new Act may constitute not more than three charitable or religious institutions or endowments each of whose annual income is rupees fifty thousand but does not exceed rupees one lakh into such groups as may be prescribed. Sub-section (2) of Section 29 provides for appointment of executive officer for each such group of charitable or religious institutions or endowments. Therefore, the new Act provides for appointment of executive officer in respect of a group of institutions whose income is rupees fifty thousand, but does not exceed more than rupees one lakh. It is an admitted fact that the income of the present temple is only Rs. 15,000/-. It is also true that the appointments made under the old Act will continue provided the provisions under the old Act are not inconsistent with the provisions of the new Act, as per savings Section 155 of the new Act. However, under the new Act, there is no specific provision prohibiting appointment of an executive officer in respect of a charitable or religious institution or endowment whose income is less than rupees fifty thousand. In the absence of a specific provision under the new Act prohibiting appointment of executive officer, in respect of an institution whose annual income is less than rupees fifty thousand, it cannot be said that the executive officer appointed under the old Act will cease to function on the commencement of the new Act, 1987. Therefore, there is no substance in the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the appointment of executive officer made under the old Act, in respect of institutions whose annual income is less than rupees fifty thousand, gets terminated immediately after the commencement of the new Act.
12. Further, Section 155(2) of the new Act provides that notwithstanding the repeal of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966, all rules made, notifications or certificates issued orders passed, decisions made, proceedings taken and other things done by any authority or officer under the repealed Act shall in so far as they are not inconsistent with this Act be deemed to have been made, issued, passed, taken or done by the appropriate authority or officer under the corresponding provisions of this Act and shall have effect accordingly until they are modified, cancelled or superseded under the provisions of the repealing Act. Therefore, the rules made under 1966 Act will be deemed to be issued under the 1987 Act and shall have effect accordingly. We have noticed that there is no specific provision dealing with appointment of Executive Officers in the 1987 Act. Such appointments were made as per rules prescribed under the 1966 Act. The rules have to be framed in exercise of the power under Section 29(3) read with Section 153 of the 1987 Act.
13. Under Section 33(2) of the Act the Government may by notification regulate the classification, methods of recruitment, qualifications, conditions of service, pay and allowances and discipline and conduct of every Endowment service thereby constituted under Sub-section (1). We are of the opinion that till such notification is issued and rules are framed in exercise of the powers under Sections 29(3), 33(2) and 153 of the 1987 Act, which contained the provisions for appointment of Executive Officers, the Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 are to continue, as if prescribed under the 1987 Act.
14. This was the view taken by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 1715/88.The same view was reiterated in W.A. No. 369/91dt.28-3-91. In the latter decision, the Court held that-
"The emerging position thus is that as no Rules relating to appointment of Executive Officers have yet been framed under the 1987 Act, the Rules framed in 1978, being the Executive Officers Subordinate Service Rules, under the 1966 Act, would continue to operate. In the result, the Commissioner of Endowments continues, as before, to have jurisdiction to appoint Executive Officers."
On the basis of the above exposition of law, there is no merit in the contention urged by the petitioner.
15. The Writ Appeal and Writ Petition are, therefore, devoid of any merit and they are accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.