Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Tirumala Merchants Welfare ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr. on 10 September, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1998(6)ALD304, AIR 1999 ANDHRA PRADESH 92, (1998) 6 ANDHLD 304, (1998) 3 ANDHWR 658, (1998) 3 APLJ 216, (1998) 2 LS 469
Author: C.V.N. Sastri
Bench: C.V.N. Sastri
ORDER
1. This is a writ petition filed by Tirumala Merchants Welfare Association (Regd.No.329 of 1987) represented by its President N. Purushottam, Tirumala Hills and 29 others for issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring sub-section 3(a) (iii) of Section 114 of AP. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Act 30 of 1987) insofar as it prohibit possession, use or consumption of cigarettes including beedies and Chuttas as violative of Articles 14 and 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India with a consequential direction to the second respondent not to interfere with the right of the petitioner and the other members of the first petitioner-association to carry on business or trade in selling cigarettes including beedies and Chuttas on Tirumala Hills.
2. As the learned Counsel, who was originally on record for the petitioners, died and no one else put in appearance for the petitioners, notices were issued by the Court to all the petitioners. Only the first petitioner could be served and the others could not be served for one reason or the other inspite of repeated attempts for service. Sri P. Gangirami Reddy has since filed his appearance for the first petitioner. Thus the other petitioners are not represented.
3. The learned Counsel for the first petitioner sought to challenge the constitutionality of sub-section 3(a)(iii) of Section 114 of the said Act mainly on the ground that it is violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. It is also contended that though the trade in cigarettes, beedies and cigars may be prohibited in the temple precincts and the surrounding area, imposition of a total ban on carrying on the trade in the entire Tirumala Hills area is arbitrary and illegal and discriminatory inasmuch as no such restriction is imposed in the case of other temples.
4. Separate counter-affidavits are filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 opposing the writ petition and defending the constitutionality of the provision on the ground that it is a reasonable restriction which is aimed at maintaining, preserving and protecting the sanctity of the Tirumala Hills which are considered to be very holy and sacred for the entire Hindu community not only in India but all over the world. It is also stated that such a provision is not introduced in the Act for the first time as stated by the petitioners and a similar provision was also incorporated in the earlier Act of 1966 and the same has been inforce all through. It is further stated that the entire Tirumala Hills area is the property of the Devasthanam and no one has any right, muchless fundamental right, to carry on any business or trade in the said area without the permission of the Devasthanam. Several third party-affidavits are also filed from Acharya Purusha, Mirasidars and other office-holders and devotees in support of the said averments in the counter-affidavit.
5. The petitioners have not raised the question of legislative competence of the State Legislature to pass the said enactment. The general presumption is in favour of the constitutionality of the Act. The petitioners have not made any serious attempt to rebut the said presumption. The petitioners have also not disputed the claim of the respondents that the entire area of the Tirumala Hills is the property of the Devasthanam and that no person has any right to carry on any business without the permission of the Devasthanam. As such the question of violation of any fundamental rights of the petitioners docs not arise at all. It is not as if the petitioners are prevented from carrying on the said business altogether anywhere. The restriction is only confined to the area of Tirumala Hills which is the property of the Devasthanam. Obviously the petitioners cannot claim to have any right to carry on any business in the property belonging to Devasthanam without the permission of the Devasthanam. That apart, the restriction imposed by the provision is a reasonable restriction which is aimed at not only preserving the sanctity of the place and respecting the religious sentiments of the Hindu community but it is also aimed at safeguarding and promoting the general health and welfare of the pilgrims who visit the Tirumala Hills.
6. I do not, therefore, find any merit in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed but without costs.