Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sri Gunda Subbarayudu Mutyamamba Rama ... vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh on 18 October, 2024
1
*HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
+WRIT PETITION No.11907 of 2012
Between:
# Sri Gunda Subbarayudu Mutyamamba Rama
Satram rep. by Founder Family Member, Gunda Gagadhra
S/o. Vittal Rao
... Petitioner
And
$ The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Endowments Department, Secretariat
Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and 3 others
.... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 18.10.2024
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.11907 of 2012
% 18.10.2024
Between:
# Sri Gunda Subbarayudu Mutyamamba Rama
Satram rep. by Founder Family Member, Gunda Gagadhra
S/o. Vittal Rao
... Petitioner
And
$ The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Endowments Department, Secretariat
Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and 3 others
.... Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri D.V. Sasidhar
! Counsel for Respondents: Sri V.T.M. Prasad, SC for Endowments
G.P for Endowments
<Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
3
APHC010709332012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 11907/2012
Between:
Sri Gunda Subbarayudu Mutyamamba Rama Satram ...PETITIONER
Represented By
AND
Government Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. D V SASIDHAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. V T M PRASAD SC FOR ENDOWNMENTS
2. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS
The Court made the following:
ORDER:-
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:
".....to issue a Writ Order or Directions particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the Proceedings issued by the 3rd Respondent in Rc No B2/5603/201 1 Dated 17042012 is illegal and arbitrary and without jurisdiction and set aside the same...."4
2. It is case of the petitioner that his great grandfather Gunda Subbarayudu has established the institution in the year 1943 in the name and style of "SRI GUNDA SUBBARAYUDU MUTYAMAMBA RAMA SATRAM"
(herein after called "Satram") to provide Annadanam to Brahmana, Shatriya and Vysya Community. He has donated 40 acres of land situated at Jakkampudi Shahabad and patapadu Villges, Vijayawada rural and also donated a building 11-25- 97 situated at main road Vijayawada and an extent of 0.85 Cents of site at Kothapet, Vijayawada. During his life time he managed the institution and after his demise his son Gunda Krishna Murthy managed and thereafter my father Gunda Kodanda Rama Vittal Rao managed the institution till his death namely 26.01.1997. Subsequently, after demise of this father, the petitioner has been managing the institution. The Assistant Commissioner by the proceedings dated 10.10.2002 in RC No.A1/7536/2002 has recognized the petitioner as founder Institution member under the provisions of Act 30of 1987. It is stated that, in order to fulfill the objects in a better way, the petitioner applied to the Government for exemption of the satram from the purview of the provisions of the Act. But the same was rejected by the Vigilance officer of the office of the commissioner by the proceedings dated 23.07.2011. The Petitioner recently came to know that the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.1098 Revenue (Endowments I) Department dated 11.09.2008 has exempted all the Choultries and Annadanamsamajams maintained by Arya Vysya Community from the operation of Section 15 and 29 of the Act. The exemption orders passed by the Government is in General 5 and applicable to all the institutions/choultries established by the Arya Vysya Community. Therefore neither the Government nor the Commissioner or any authority has any jurisdiction to appoint any executive Officer to maintain or administer the choultry/annadana samajams established by the Arya Vysya Community. Without knowing the exemption orders passed by the Government, the petitioner has submitted the application for exemption of the institution from the purview of the Act. How ever, in view of the General Exemption Orders issued by the government or other authority to exercise any power to appoint executive officer U/s29 of the Act. Therefore the impugned order suffers lack of jurisdiction and is Void. Hence, the present writ petition came to be filed.
3. This Court vide order dated23.04.2012 has granted interim suspension as prayed for.
4. The counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent. While denying the allegations made in the petition, inter alia, stated that, the subject institution having Ac.40.00 cents of Agricultural land at Jakkampudi, Shahabad and Mukasa Pathapadu in Krishna District. Besides this there are one building and one vacant site which are located in prime location at Vijayawada city. The Founder Family Member who is the petitioner herein made a representation to exempt the institution under the provisions of Endowments Act U/s.154 and the same was rejected. As the petitioner failed to lease out the lands in public auction as required U/s.82 of the Act for which caused financial loss to the institution and violated the statutory provisions. It 6 is stated that on his representation regarding exemption of the institution, the Commissioner of Endowments has examined at field level and noticed that the petitioner failed to discharge his legitimate duties and hence rejected his request for exemption and instructed the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinada to post an Executive Officer to the subject institution to set-right the administration and to follow the due procedure as prescribed under the provisions of Endowments Act for which the Commissioner authorized the Deputy Commissioner to delegate the such power U/s.8(4) of the Act 30/1987. It is stated that the petitioner herein mentioning the G.O.Ms.No.1098 in which the Government gave exemption to Arya Vysya Community Organizations U/s.15 and 29 i.e., constitution of Non-hereditary trust board and appointment of Executive Officer. But, in the instant case, the object of the subject institution is providing Annadanam to Brahmana, Kshatriya, Vysya Community and providing Chalivendram during the summer to all communal people and to provide scholarships to the poor students for all community people. So, the object of the institution is not restricted for one community to have exemption under this G.O as contended by the petitioner herein. It is stated that even if the G.O. applies to said institution, the petitioner has to follow other sections of Endowments Act to discharge his duties for better administration of the subject institution. According to Section 17 of the Act, the petitioner was declared as Member of Founder Family by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments by exercising the powers vested with him. Similarly, the petitioner has also to follow and discharge his duties as 7 required U/s.57, 60, 65 and other provisions. But, he utterly failure to discharge his duties duly following the statutory provisions under the Endowments Act. Hence, the 3rd respondent was issued orders appointing the 4th respondent as Executive Officer to the subject institution as the Commissioner authorized and delegated such power to the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments U/s.8(4) of the Act 30/1987. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. Heard Sri D.V. Sasidhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondents.
6. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the averments made in the petition, contended that, the petitioner has submitted representation to the respondents to co reconsider the request for exemption of the satram from the purview of the provisions of the Act. The proposal for exemption was forwarded by the 3rd respondent to the Commissioner for exemption. But, meanwhile the 3rd respondent appointed the 4th respondent as Executive Officer to manage the affairs of the petitioner satram on the basis of the orders of the Commissioner dated 23.07.2011. he submits that Under Section 154 of the Act, it is only the Government to grant or not to grant the exemption for the Charitable Institution from the purview of the Act. Learned counsel further submits that the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction to pass orders on the representations submitted by the petitioner. He further submits that the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.1098, dated 11.9.2008 has 8 exempted all the Choultries and Annadanamsamajams maintained by Arya Vysya Community from the operation of Section 15 and 29 of the Act. Therefore, neither the Government nor the commissioner or any authority has any jurisdiction to appoint any Executive Officer to maintain or administer the Choultry/Annadanasamajams established by Arya Vysya Community. Therefore, impugned order lacks jurisdiction and liable to be set aside.
7. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of this Court passed in WP No.11806 of 2021 dated 03-08-2021 and in WP No.26974 of 2021 dated 27-03-2023.
8. Per contra learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments while reiterating the averments made in the counter, contended that, even if the G.O. applies to the said institution, the petitioner has to follow other sections of Endowments Act to discharge his duties for better administration of the subject institution. But the petitioner utterly failed to discharge his duties duly following the statutory provisions under the Endowments Act. Therefore, the 3rdrespondent was issued orders appointing 4th respondent as Executive officer to the subject institution as the Commissioner authorized and delegated such power to the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments under Section 8(4) of the Act 30/1987. Therefore there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order.
9. On hearing the submissions, this Court observed that, as per G.O.Ms.No.306 Revenue (Endts.II) Department, dated 5.11.2021, wherein it 9 was mentioned that "in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 154 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable du Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 1987, Government of Andhra Pradesh grant exemption to all the Vasavi Kanyaka Parameswari Choultries/Anna satrams and being managed by the Arya Vysya Community Committees from the operation provisions of A.P.C.H.R.I & Endowments Act, 1987, except Section 80 of the Act with a condition that if any irregularities are found in the administration, the Government will cancel exemption to the said Choultry/Anna satram without any notice"
10. It is pertinent to mention here that Section 29 in The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, which reads as under:
29. [ Appointment and duties of Executive Officer.:
(1)There shall be an Executive Officer for every Charitable or Religious Institution or Endowment to be appointed by the Government in the case of institutions and Endowments having income of rupees one crore and above and by the Commissioner in the case of other Institutions and Endowments included in the lists published under clauses (a) and (b) of Section 6. In respect of charitable or religious institutions or endowment having income of less than rupees two lakhs per annum, and included in the list published under clause (c) of Section 6, it shall not be necessary to appoint an executive officer. The cadre of Executive Officers to be appointed under this section for the respective institutions on the basis of the income of the Institution or Endowment shall be as may be prescribed:
Provided that, where there is no Executive Officer in respect of any Charitable or Religious Institution or Endowment, the trustee or the Chairman of the Board of Trustees or any employee of any Institution or Endowment where the income exceeds Rs. 2 lakhs, but is less than Rs. 25 lakhs per annum, duly authorised by the Commissioner in this behalf shall exercise the powers and perform the functions and discharge duties of an Executive Officer:
Provided further that it shall be competent for the Commissioner to appoint an Executive Officer to any institution having income of less than Rs. 2 lakhs per annum if there are substantial immovable properties to the institution or if he is satisfied that such appointment is necessary in the interest of better administration of the institution or for any other reason to be recorded in writing:
Provided also that, it shall be competent for the Commissioner to constitute such number of Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments as may be necessary, into a single group for the purpose of appointing an Executive Officer or any other employee to such group.
(2)The number of Executive Officers in each grade shall be as may be prescribed by the Government from time to time and the Commissioner shall be the appointing authority for the Executive Officer of Grades, I, II and III.10
Provided that forty percentum of vacancies in third grade Executive Officers posts and twenty percentum of the vacancies in other two grades of Executive Officers shall be filled by the employees belonging to the institutions or Endowments of prescribed grade:
Provided further that it shall be competent for the Government to appoint a Regional Joint Commissioner as an Executive Officer to any institution and it shall be competent for the Commissioner to appoint a Deputy Commissioner or an Assistant Commissioner as an Executive Officer to any institution basing on the annual income of such institution.
(3)The Executive Officer appointed and exercising the powers and discharging the duties shall be a person professing Hindu Religion and shall cease to exercise those powers and discharge those duties when he ceases to profess that religion.
(a)The Executive Officer appointed under this section shall be responsible for carrying out all lawful directions issued by such trustee from time to time;
(b)The Executive Officer shall, subject to such restrictions as may be imposed by the Government;
(i)be responsible for the proper maintenance and custody of all the records, accounts and other documents and of all the jewels, valuables, money, funds and other properties of the Institution or Endowment;
(ii)arrange for the proper collection of income and for incurring of expenditure;
(iii)sue or be sued in the name of the institution or Endowment in all legal proceedings;
Provided that any legal proceedings pending immediately before the commencement of this Act by or against an institution or Endowment in which any person other than an Executive Officer is suing or being sued shall not be affected;
(iv)deposit of money received by the institution or Endowment in such Bank or treasury as may be prescribed and be entitled to sign all orders or cheque? against such moneys;
Provided that the Executive Officer shall not encash the fixed deposit certificates pertaining to any scheme or specific endowment under any circumstances;
(v)have power in cases of emergency to direct the execution of any work or the doing of any act which is provided for in the budget for the year or the immediate execution or the doing of which is in his opinion necessary for the preservation of the properties of the institution or endowment or for the service or safety of pilgrims resorting thereto and to direct that the expenses of executing such work or the doing of such work or the doing of such act shall be paid from the funds of the institution or endowment:
Provided that the Executive Officer shall report forthwith to the Trustee, any action taken by him under this sub-clause and the reasons therefore and obtain approval;
(c)the Executive Officer shall, with the prior approval of the trustee institute any legal proceedings in the name of the institution or endowment or defend , any such legal proceeding;
(a)The Executive Officer appointed under this section shall be the employee of the Government and the conditions of his service shall be such as may be determined by the Government. The salary, allowances, pension and other remuneration of the Executive Officer shall be paid out of the consolidated fund of the State and later recovered from the Endowment Administrative Fund.
(b)It shall be the duty of the Executive Officer of every Religious or Charitable Institution to foster faith, devotion and ethical conduct in the society, by facilitating formation of a BhakthaSamajam attached to each Institution, on voluntary basis, consisting of the devotees thereof in order to periodically organize Bhajans, Religious discourses devotional and other Religious programmes such as Nagara Sankeertans etc., appropriate to the Custom, Usage, Tradition and Sampradayams of the Instituion concerned.
11. On a plain reading of the above, it is observed that, neither the Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner can appoint an Executive Officer for a temple.
11
Section 8(4) of the Act, reads as under:
8. Powers and functions of Commissioner and Additional Commissioner.
(1) xxx Xxx Xxxx (4)The Commissioner may delegate to a Deputy Commissioner any of the powers conferred on or functions entrusted to the Commissioner by or under this Act including the powers and functions of an Assistant Commissioner which may be exercised or performed by the Commissioner under sub-
section (5) but not including the power and functions of the Commissioner under sub-section (1), Sections 6, 15, 49, 51, 66, 90, 92 and 132 in respect of any institution or endowments or any class or group of institutions or endowments in the State subject to such restriction and control as the Government may by general or special order lay down and subject also to such limitations and conditions, if any, as may be specified in the order of delegation.
12. As seen from the impugned proceedings dated 17.4.2012, it is observed that, "in pursuance of the said orders, Kum. N.Sandhya, Executive Officer of Sri BrahmarambaMalleswara Swamy temple (Old sivalayam) Vijayawada is hereby appointed as Executive Officer of Sri Gunda Subarayudu, MutyamambaSatram, Gandhi Nagar, Vijayawada city in the interest of better administration. She is directed to take complete charge of the above satram immediately and send compliance report with charge list. The founder Family member of the subject satram is directed to handover complete charge of the institution and its properties, accounts, records etc. to the above Executive Officer at once."
13. The above proceedings do not show that the proposed delegation of power has been placed for the consideration of the Government or that it was published in the Gazette. The 3rd respondent, who is Deputy Commissioner has no power to appoint such an Executive Officer to the 12 temple. So, in view of the foregoing discussing, this Court deems fit to allow the present writ petition.
14. Accordingly, the Writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned proceedings in RC No.B2/5603/2011, dated 17.4.2012 issued by the 3rdrespondenet. There shall be no order as to costs.
15. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.
_________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Date : 18 .10.2024 Gvl 13 HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.11907/ 2012 Date :18.10.2024 Gvl