Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.28 seconds)Section 29 in The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 [Entire Act]
Pavani Sridhara Rao vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 29 February, 1996
"The third submission of Mr.Rao of absence of materials also does not stand to scrutiny. No doubt, in a decision of the Supreme Court in Pavani Sridhara Rao vs. Govt of A.P. and others Court ruled that the power to appoint Executive Officer could be exercised only on relevant data and on necessary facts and materials, but could not be exercised just half-handed without there being any necessity for appointment of Executive Officer for a Temple in public interest. But, as we have already alluded, in fact, there were materials before the Commissioner to consider the appointment of Executive Officer, if necessary. Over a period of years, the appellant was not exercising any diligence to collect the dues, both in cash and kind, of the institution and was not even submitting the accounts. Whether such materials were adequate to appoint an Executive Officer or not is not within the domain of the Court to examine as it is well known that the adequacy or inadequacy of the material to take an executive decision is not for the Courts to scrutinise. If at all there is existence of some materials on the basis of which a reasonable man could be persuaded to take a decision, the quantum of the material would not be for the Court to scrutinise and analyse."
G. Ramana Murthy vs Govt. Of A.P. Rep. By Its Secretary, ... on 24 July, 1997
The Division Bench negativing the said contention
relied upon the aforementioned judgment of the Supreme Court as also the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Ramana Murthy (supra) holding:
V.S.R. Murthy And Ors. vs Engineer-In-Chief (Irrigation Wing), ... on 15 October, 1997
"Appointment of Executive Officer by the Commissioner of Endowment was challenged. Reference to Section 29 was inappropriate. The order was admittedly issued by the Commissioner. Section 29 of the Act comes into play only when the Executive Officer is appointed by the Government. The appointment in the instant case was by the Commissioner and was obviously under Section 8 of the Act. This Court has held in G.R. Murthy vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh that appointment of Executive Officer under Section 8 of the Act is valid. This view was confirmed by us while dealing with W. A. No. 140 of 1999 disposed of on 10-2-1999. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the judgment under appeal is unsustainable. 'The petitioner was claiming as a hereditary trustee which office was abolished and appointment of Executive Officer under Section 8 of the Act by the Commissioner was justified."
Executive Officer, Group Temples, ... vs Dasaratha Rama Rao And Others on 28 April, 1999
7. Yet again, in Executive Officer, Group Temples v. D. Rama Rao, (DB), in a case where the contention was raised is that the State Government is the only appropriate authority for appointing Executive Officer.
Kalluram Alias Munnalal vs The Commissioner Of Endowments And Ors. on 16 July, 1991
The matter again came up for consideration before a Division Bench of
this Court reported in G. Ramana Murthy v. Govt. of A. P., (DB), wherein, relying on Kalluram (supra) as also the decision of the apex Court in Pavani Sridhara Rao v. Govt. of A.P. and others, , it was held:
Pannalal Bansilal Pitti & Ors. Etc vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr on 17 January, 1996
The Supreme Court in PANNALAL v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH . also upholds the validity of Section 16 of the Act."
1