Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

a) That the 6th respondent was 3rd accused in Crime No. 19/1982 on the file of Puthalapattu P.S., under Sections 366 IPC (kidnapping, abducting or inducing women to compel her marriage), 392 IPC (Punishment for Robbery), read with 109 IPC (Punishment for abetment) and charge sheet is filed before Assistant Sessions Court, Chittoor. The above crime is numbered as S.C. No. 104/86. After full fledged trial, the 6th respondent and others were convicted and sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years on two counts i.e., under Section 366 rule/which 109 IPC and under Section 420 IPC vide Judgment dt. 23-9- 1987.
d) The 6th respondent filed SLP (Criminal) No. 1022/1989 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same was numbered as Criminal Appeal and ultimately the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its Judgment dt. 6-3-1995 reduced the period of sentence to the period already undergone by him. The conviction was not reversed and as such the 6th respondent had undergone sentence imposed by the criminal Court for the offence under Section 366 IPC which is a crime against women and the said offence involving moral turpitude and the conviction and sentence not reversed by the Courts. Therefore, the 6th respondent is disqualified under Section 19(3) of the Endowment Act, 1987 and he cannot be appointed as Member of Trust Board or Chairman of the Trust Board in the interest of the Temple in view of the disqualification.

12. Counter affidavits of 1st respondent and 2nd respondent are almost on similar lines. The counter affidavit on behalf of the 2nd respondent was sworn to by V. Veerendra Varma, The Deputy Commissioner of Endowments Department, Boggulakunta, Hyderabad. Counter affidavit of 1st respondent was sworn to by I.V.Subba Rao, the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (Endowments) Department, Hyderabad. Since both the counter affidavits almost are on the same lines, it may be appropriate to have a look at the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent. It is averred in para 3 that it is true that the Government had called for the applications for constituting the Trust Board and the 6th respondent applied for being appointed as Member of Trust Board. It is also stated that the Government had called for the report of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Chittoor and that the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Chittoor got a report from the Inspector of Police and reported that there are no criminal cases pending against the 6th respondent. It is also averred that the petitioners had not submitted certified copies of the Judgments of the Criminal Courts to the Assistant Commissioner. Further it is averred that after getting the report from Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Chittoor and after obtaining information and report from the concerned and after following the procedure, the 1st respondent issued G.O.Rt. No. 1515, dt. 16-7-2007, constituting the Board of Trustees to the 4th respondent Temple and the 6th respondent was also appointed as Member of the Trust Board. Further it is stated that there was a meeting of the 9 members appointed as Trustees on 20-7-2007 and the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Chittoor administered the oath of office and secrecy to them and that the meeting of the Trustees was conducted on 1-8-2007 and the other 8 Trustees elected R.6 as Chairman of the Trust Board and thus, the order of the Government was implemented and the 6th respondent has been acting as Chairman of the Trust Board and that in view of the interim direction of this Court dt. 6-8-2007 he is not able to function as Chairman of Trust Board. It is also further stated that the graveness of the charge against the 6th respondent is that he assisted one B.Jayachandra Reddy in abducting a girl by name Chittemma for performing her marriage with Jayachandra Reddy and besides R.6, there were 17 more accused in the said criminal case and petitioners 1 and 3 were also accused in the said case. The object of these 18 persons taking a girl by name Chittemma to a Temple is to perform her marriage with Jayachandra Reddy, one of the accused, and the said marriage took place and was also consummated in a Hotel at Bangalore. It is also stated that though there is no direct allegation against the 6th respondent, he was convicted along with others for the offence under Section 366 IPC. It is also stated that the 6th respondent was acquitted of the charge of robbery but convicted for an offence under Section 420 IPC by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Chittoor in S.C. No. 104/86 on 23-9-1987. The Sessions Judge, Chittoor on 21-4-1988 in Crl.Appeal No. 91/87 confirmed the conviction under Section 366 IPC but acquitted the 6th respondent under Section 420 IPC. It is also stated that though the Additional Assistant Judge and Sessions Judge sentenced the 6th respondent to undergo imprisonment for a period of 3 years under Section 366 IPC, it was reduced to one year imprisonment by this Court on 19-4-1989 in Criminal Revision No. 182/88 and further it is stated that the said sentence was further reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 6-3-1995 in Criminal Appeal No. 332/95. It is also further stated that there is no moral turpitude in the allegation made against the 6th respondent as he was not the main accused in the case and he was only said to have been helped others in performing the marriage of Chittemma with Jayachandra Reddy. It is also further stated that Jayachandra Reddy and Chittemma are close relatives and they underwent a valid and legal marriage ceremony voluntarily and they are living as husband and wife and the same was brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to reduce the sentence of the 6th respondent to the period already undergone by him. It is also further stated that the said offence had taken place as long back as on 23-10-1982 and a period of 25 years had lapsed since then and the 6th respondent was in jail for a sufficient time for his misdeed and he cannot be penalized again after 25 years by disqualifying him from being appointed as Trustee of the Temple. It is also averred that the Inspector of Police reported to the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Chittoor that there are no cases pending against the 6th respondent establishes that he is maintaining good conduct and respect in the society. It is stated that in his report dt. 24-6-2007 the Assistant Commissioner stated that no criminal case is pending against the 6th respondent in Irala P.S. Further it is stated that there is no Police Station in Kanipakam village and at present this village is in the limits of Irala Police Station and hence the registration of the case under Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (POA) Act 1989 is not correct. Further it is stated that the Government called for applications, received the applications, got the antecedents of the applicants, verified departmentally, got the truth or otherwise of the allegations made against the respondent verified, secured reports from the concerned officers, considered the objections and then appointed 9 Trustees including the 6th respondent and that there is no irregularity or illegality in the appointment and the appointment made by the Government is not void.

17. A common reply affidavit was filed in detail sworn to by the 17th petitioner. It is stated in para 2 of the reply affidavit that with regard to the counter filed by one Mr.B.Veerender Varma, Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, it is not at all a counter filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent and that in the first page of that counter affidavit, it is termed and stated as COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY RESPONDENT No. 2, but the counter affidavit is filed by one B.Veerender Varma, who is a third party to the Writ Petition and he has no locus standi to file the counter. It is also stated that further there is no averment stating that the 2nd respondent has authorized him to file the said counter and in the absence of the same, a third party cannot file a counter, who is no way concerned with the Writ Petition and as such the contents of the counter affidavit cannot be taken into consideration. It is also stated that donating certain lands, as stated that in the writ affidavit, is on record and is to the everybody's knowledge in the local area and the so-called Deputy Commissioner sitting at Endowments Head Office, is not empowered to say about the same. It is further stated that the contention that the Inspector of Police reported that there are no criminal cases pending against 6th respondent is false since this petitioner and the 2nd petitioner have sent a representation dt. 9-4-2007 along with the copies of Judgments and F.I.R. No. 34/2007 on the file of Irala Police Station to the Hon'ble Minister for Endowments, and respondents 1 to 3 in this Writ Petition by registered post with acknowledgement due and the said representation was received by the said authorities and had taken no action, but inspite of the said representation, they have appointed 6th respondent as Trust Board Member and that therefore the stage-managed Police report obtained after submitting the above representation, is not valid and the appointment of the 6th respondent cannot be made on the said report. In fact, in para 3 of the counter affidavit itself it is stated that the petitioners have not submitted certified copies of the Judgments of the Criminal Courts to the Assistant Commissioner. It is also averred that the 3rd respondent herein in his proceedings Rc. No. B3/1320/2007-Admn, dt. 1-6-2007 requested to furnish the copies of Judgment of various Courts and FIR No. 34/2007 which they have already submitted to him. However, in pursuance of the above said letter, the petitioner again submitted another set of copies on 5-6-2007 by attesting the copies by a Notary and obtained acknowledgement for the same and that therefore the allegation that the 1st respondent issued the impugned G.O., constituting the Board of Trustees after obtaining information and report from the concerned is not correct. Further it is stated that the competent person to consider the representation and to take action in accordance with law is the 1st respondent, but the 1st respondent has not filed any counter in this regard and a third party has no right to say anything about the constitution of the Trust Board by the 1st respondent. It is also further stated that the allegation that the 6th respondent assisted one B.Jayachandra Reddy in abducting a girl for performing her marriage and other facts which were discussed in the Judgments of the trial Court and appellate Courts were interpreted to suit the convenience of the 6th respondent by the deponent of this counter and that further, certain facts with regard to criminal cases stated against the 6th respondent were not answered by the 6th respondent in his counter, but on his behalf the deponent of this counter is saying so many things for the reasons best known to him. It is also stated that at para 4, 4th line from bottom of page No. 2 of the counter, "though there is no direct allegation against the 6th respondent, he was also convicted along with others for the offence under Section 366 I.P.C." and this statement amounts to contempt of Court, though the criminal Court convicted the 6th respondent after considering all the aspects of the case and the same was confirmed by the District Court in Appeal, High Court in revision and the Apex Court in S.L.P. Further it is stated that the offence involves moral turpitude and the mere statement of the deponent of the counter affidavit that there is no moral turpitude against the 6th respondent is incorrect and he cannot be a judge to consider and decide the Judgments delivered by the trial Court to Apex Court. It is further stated that if an offence of kidnapping, abducting or inducing a woman to compel her marriage, does not involve moral turpitude, no other crime will come under moral turpitude and the deponent of the counter affidavit has filed the counter to help the 6th respondent in his own way and this itself shows the influence of the 6th respondent. Further it is stated that as stated earlier, the deponent of this counter tried to give such a colour that though the 6th respondent was convicted by the appropriate Court, he cannot be penalized again and if that is the case, why the legislature is continuing Section 19(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 and without removing the said provision, the person working as Deputy Commissioner cannot plead for 6th respondent contrary to the provisions of the statute and this shows the commitment of the Endowments Department to appoint the 6th respondent as Trustee of the Board to the 4th respondent Temple at the cost of devotees and ignoring and bypassing the provisions of law. It is also stated that the 3rd respondent's report dt. 24-6- 2007 was not furnished to these petitioners and as stated earlier though they have furnished all the copies, the authorities managed to send reports that there are no cases against the 6th respondent. Further it is averred in the reply affidavit that it is for the Government to produce the records and state what made it to appoint the 6th respondent inspite of the representations of the 2nd petitioner and this 17th petitioner and the deponent of the counter has no right whatsoever to say about the correctness of the impugned order. It is stated that further, in nutshell, the deponent admitted in the counter that the 6th respondent was convicted by a competent criminal Court and the same was confirmed by the appellate Courts on one hand and on the other he says that the 6th respondent was convicted though there is no direct allegation against him and this itself shows the determination, commitment, interest and favoritism of the officials to help the 6th respondent contrary to the provisions of the statute. It is also stated with regard to 4th respondent's counter affidavit, that the 4th respondent is a formal party since the 6th respondent got appointed as Trustee to it and to safeguard the 4th respondent's interest and to follow the Rule of Law, these petitioners had filed this Writ Petition. It is also stated that strangely, the Executive Officer, who is in the rank of Regional Joint Commissioner has stated about the petitioners only and not stated anything about the 6th respondent and also stated that he is a native of Agarampalle village, Kanipakam Panchayat and he knows the 6th respondent personally right from his childhood, who is no other than his close friend and that in order to save his friend i.e., the 6th respondent, he exceeded his limits by saying something which is not connected with the Writ Petition and though the copies of the Judgment and FIR copies were filed along with the Writ Petition, the Executive Officer after going through the same, has filed his counter, but inspite of the material placed by the petitioners, he stated that he is not aware of the antecedents and this itself shows the love and affection of this Executive Officer towards the 6th respondent and also further he narrated the civil and criminal cases filed by some of the petitioners or against some of the petitioners. Further it is stated that with regard to the same, these petitioners have stated in para 7 of the writ affidavit that at the instance of the 6th respondent, the 5th respondent has foisted number of false cases against some of the petitioners herein and others in order to terrorize them and made them silent. It is further stated that it is the habit of the officials, including the Executive Officer, to foist criminal cases against the persons, whoever questions the highhanded action or reports to higher authorities with regard to misdeeds and mismanagement of the Temple for their selfish gain. It is also stated that actually, the 4th respondent Temple was constructed by the Kanipakam villagers and neighbouring villagers by way of donations and other contributions as a local village Temple and that now it came to the hands of Endowments Department and whenever the petitioners or villagers find irregularities in the Temple, they were forced to report the same to the higher authorities and this Executive Officer without correcting the same, has no right to question the action of the petitioners. It is also averred that there are number of things to be stated against this Executive Officer, but since they are no way connected with this Writ Petition these petitioners reserve their right to take appropriate proceedings against him and also stated that he was suspended twice and reinstated later, and there are cases pending before Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Lokayukta and as such he has no right to say about the foisted cases against some of the petitioners. It is also further stated that the Executive Officer, who is the deponent of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 4th respondent has not stated intentionally anything about the 6th respondent and not denied the averments stated in the Writ Petition including conviction of the 6th respondent and has not submitted the true facts about the 6th respondent in order to help him, since he is a close friend to him, and he stated that some of the petitioners are accused in the criminal cases and also they have filed civil cases, which are in fact stated by these petitioners in their Writ Petition and it has no bearing on this case. It is also averred that if the pendency of cases is the criteria, then the Executive Officer has no right to hold the post or file the counter since certain cases also are pending against him. It is also stated by the petitioners that their intention is that a person, who is disqualified under the Act No. 30/1987, shall not be appointed in the interest of Temple and they are not claiming any post or power in the 4th respondent Temple and therefore, this counter is no use in deciding the matter. It is further averred that when this petitioner was Sarpanch of Kanipak Gram Panchayat, he had taken steps along with the local M.L.A. and Ubhayadars of the Temple for acquiring the land by way of negotiations, Land Acquisition proceedings by convincing the local farmers in order to develop the 4th respondent Temple and with regard to donating the lands by some of the petitioners and Saaswatha Ubhayadars and it is a matter of record and the mere denial of the Executive Officer will not help to prove the same. With regard to the counter affidavit filed by 6th respondent, specific stand had been taken that the 1st respondent had to support in its action for issuing the impugned order by placing the records and filing counter affidavit, but the 1st respondent, who is the competent authority, and also the 2nd respondent, who is the highest authority in the Endowments Department, have not filed counters since they have committed mistake at the pressures of higher-ups in appointing the 6th respondent as Trustee of the Board contrary to the Act No. 30/87 and the 5th respondent has also not filed his counter since he cannot defend and support his police report given in favour of 6th respondent, which is illegal and given deliberately suppressing the facts stated in the Writ Petition. With regard to paras 2 to 5 of the 6th respondent counter affidavit, it is stated that it is not correct to state that the petitioners have not come to the Court with clean hands. It is also stated that as regards petitioners 1 and 3 are concerned, they have stated in para 6 of the Writ Affidavit that they were accused and suffered the conviction and sentence in the criminal case along with the 6th respondent and further they have stated that the offence involves moral turpitude in ground No. 2 of the writ affidavit and also in the representation sent to the respondents 1 to 3 and as such it is not correct to state that they have not stated that the alleged offence is an offence resulting moral turpitude. It is further stated that though criminal cases were registered against 6th respondent, with the support of the 5th respondent, he was not arrested and the particulars were already given in the Writ Petition and as such the contention of the 6th respondent that no case is registered against him and the writ petitioners are trying to foist some false cases, are incorrect. It is also stated that the present Sarpanch of Kanipakam Gram Panchayat, who is a Scheduled Caste Woman, gave a complaint to the Irala P.S. and F.I.R. No. 34/2007 dt. 1-4-2007 was registered against the 6th respondent and others under Section 3(1)(x) SC & ST (POA) Act and Section 506 IPC and the same is pending and another case was registered against 6th respondent and 2 others on the file of Irala P.S. vide FIR No. 64/2007 dt. 3-7-2007 under Sections 436 and 326 IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) SC & ST (POA) Act. Further it is stated that the police have of the taken any steps in arresting the 6th respondent, but at the same time the 5th respondent being a responsible Police Officer has issued a false certificate stating that there are no cases pending against the 6th respondent apart from not revealing the conviction suffered by the 6th respondent. It is stated that the contention that the petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court suppressing the fact that Section 28 of the Act provides a specific remedy is not correct. It is also stated that Section 19 deals with disqualification for appointment and Section 28 deals with suspension, removal or dismissal of Trustee, if he becomes subject to any disqualifications specified in Section 19. The 6th respondent without knowing the difference between Sections 19 and 28 commented about the above said fact and it is a question of law, which needs no reply on the face of it. With regard to paras 5 to 8 of the counter affidavit, it is averred that as stated earlier Section 28 has no application to this case and Sections 149, 153 and G.O.Ms. No. 651 are also in no way connected with this case, since it relates to suspension, removal or dismissal of Trustee and procedure of hearing Appeals etc. and it is not an alternative remedy as stated by the 6th respondent. It is also stated that there is no Appeal or alternative remedy in the statute against orders of the Government and the only remedy is to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but the 6th respondent deliberately stated that the Writ Petition is a misuse of process of law and his intention is to approach the lower authorities against the order of Government, so that with the help of his political bosses, he can get an order in his favour, but the mechanism provided under the Act is not applicable to this case, since they have already submitted a detailed representation dt. 9-4-2007 along with Judgments and copies of FIR to the respondents 1 to 3 and in fact after receiving the said representation, the 3rd respondent again requested the petitioners to furnish copies of Judgments and they have furnished the same and the said fact is a matter of record and they have filed necessary papers as annexures to the Writ Petition and they pray that the same may be read as part and parcel of this reply affidavit. Further it is stated that ignoring the said Judgments of trial Court and the Apex Court, the respondents issued the impugned order in favour of the 6th respondent at the cost of the Temple and its devotees, which is contrary to law. With regard to paras 9 to 12 of the counter, it is also stated that the conviction under Section 366 IPC for kidnapping, abducting or inducing a woman to compel her marriage, involves moral turpitude and the particulars of the cases have been given in the Writ Affidavit itself and there is no room for presumption or assumption since the Judgments are very clear and the 6th respondent suffered the sentence and he cannot deny the same. Further it is stated that the statute has not provided any opportunity for the illegal actions of the respondents, except to approach this Court and it is the duty of the official respondents to enquire and appoint honest, sincere, clean and dedicated persons to the Trust Board. It is also averred that in this case, inspite of representations along with particulars, as stated earlier, were received by the respondents 1 to 3 and the 3rd respondent endorsed it also by issuing a proceeding and knowing all the facts, the 6th respondent was appointed as a Trustee. It is stated that with regard to reasonable opportunity when the matter is dealt with by an official of the Endowments Department or Government, the procedure is contemplated; and when the impugned order is questioned in this Writ Petition, the 6th respondent has no right or choice to advice the petitioners to choose a forum of his convenience and as such the Writ Petition is maintainable and in fact when the case came up for admission on the first day, the Government Pleader took time for producing the record and also when it came up on 6-8-2007, the Government Pleader took time for filing counter affidavit and this Court admitted the Writ Petition and granted interim order and Sri S.Rama Moorthy Reddy, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the 6th respondent and in his presence interim order was granted for a limited time and was extended thereafter, and as such the 6th respondent was given an opportunity by this Court. It is also stated that the authority contemplated under Section 28(3) and the provisions quoted by the 6th respondent have no relevance to this case, and a person who got convicted under Section 366 of IPC has no right to plead that he is entitled to continue as a Trustee of a prestigious Hindu Religious Institution/Temple bypassing Section 19 of Act 30/87 and therefore, the order of this Court cannot be revoked and it is a fit case to be allowed. With regard to paras 13 to 16 of the counter affidavit, it is averred that as stated earlier, Section 28 will come into operation only if a person becomes subject to any disqualifications after his appointment, but in this case, the 6th respondent is disqualified for appointing as a Trustee under Section 19(3) of the Act and the same was brought to the notice of the concerned authorities with sufficient material well in advance, but inspite of the same he was appointed by the Government for the reasons best known to it. The Judgments of the criminal Court, appellate Court, High Court and the Supreme Court are self- explanatory to say that the offence and conviction amounts to moral turpitude. Mere denial of the 6th respondent that he is not sentenced for an offence involving moral turpitude, will not change the Court verdicts against him. Further it is stated that if an offence of kidnapping, abducting or inducing a woman to compel her marriage does not involve moral turpitude, no other crime will come under moral turpitude and in such a case there is no meaning and value for Section 19(3) of the Act and law will not be changed to suit the convenience of the 6th respondent. Further it is averred that the in fact the 6th respondent's involvement was already decided by criminal Courts, and his conviction indicates the question of law with regard to the involvement of moral turpitude and as such he was involved in an offence under Section 366 of IPC which falls under moral turpitude. It is also averred that as per Law Lexicon, "Moral Turpitude" as generally been taken to mean to be a conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals and contrary to what a woman owes to a fellow man or Society in general, and that it has never been held that gravity of punishment is to be considered in determining whether misconduct involves moral turpitude or not and also it is further averred that even if the words involving moral turpitude are held to be implied in conviction on criminal charge in proviso to Article 311(2), it is clear that if a member of the Police Force is guilty of having been found drunk at a public place or to have become habituated to liquor and if he is convicted by a criminal Court, then his conviction should be held as involving moral turpitude. Further it is averred that the 6th respondent cannot deny the offence he committed and the conviction suffered by him, and also he cannot say that the offence and conviction is not a conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals and contrary to what he owes to the victim or to Society in general and that as stated earlier, as long as Section 19(3) is in the statute, the 6th respondent is not qualified for any appointment under the Act. It is also further averred that it is a nominated post intended to manage the affairs of the religious institution/Temple with dedication and criminals or convicted persons have no place to occupy the office of Trustee under the Act and that one cannot act contrary to law or statute, and as such the 6th respondent cannot be appointed and continued. It is also stated that since the writ petitioners have challenged the very appointment itself, the Writ Petition is maintainable and there is no alternative remedy. It is also stated that the 6th respondent has not denied the conviction awarded by the Courts for the offence which involves moral turpitude and the FIRs registered against him and there is no material for him to prove that he is not involved in the case, where he was convicted and his Appeal, Revision, S.L.P., were dismissed by the Courts. Further it is stated that the respondents had not denied that the 6th respondent is not involved and convicted in the said case and one way or the other, they had tried to boost the image of the 6th respondent in order to help him and continue him as Trustee and Chairman of the 4th respondent Temple bypassing the provisions of the statute. It is also stated that inspite of number of adjournments, the 1st respondent, who had issued the impugned order, had not filed counter affidavit and a third party without any authority had filed the counter affidavit on behalf of the 2nd respondent.