Allowed

M. Appa Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh.

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Sept 2021WP/10175/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a writ petition challenging the removal of a single trustee from a tank temple. The court held that removing a trustee under management allegations requires adherence to Section 28 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, specifically framing a charge and granting a hearing. Since these procedural safeguards were skipped, the im

What did the court decide?

Impugned order Rc.No.E2/COE-14022 (33)/1/2020 dated 08.04.2021 set aside; respondents allowed to follow Section 28 procedure or withdraw allegations.

M. Appa Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh. — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.10175 of 2021

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner was appointed as a single trustee of a Tank, known as Ura Tank, situated in Edubadu Village, Parchur Mandal, Prakasam District, by way of proceedings in RC.No.A5/886/2019, dated 13.01.2020. This appointment was not for a fixed term and was said to be „for time being‟. 2. Thereafter, it appears that the Commissioner of Endowments, by way of Memo in Rc.No.E2/COE-14022 (33)/1/2020, dated 08.04.2021, reviewed the appointment of the petitioner as single trustee and directed the Deputy Commissioner, Endowment Department, Guntur, to make necessary arrangements by appointing an Executive Officer on additional charge basis. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, forwarded the order of the Commissioner to the Assistant Commissioner, Endowment Department, Ongole, along with an order of appointment of the Executive Officer, parchur Group-II Temples, as the Executive Officer of the Ura Tank.

¶5

The Assistant Commissioner, Endowment Department, Ongole, in pursuance of these directions, informed the petitioner by proceedings in Rc.No.A6/1659/2020, dated 23.04.2021, that the petitioner has been removed as single trustee, with a further direction to the petitioner to handover all the accounts and other records along with the properties of the tank to the Executive Officer of Parchur Group-II Temples.

¶6

¶7

Aggrieved by these proceedings, the petitioner has approached this Court with the contention that the termination of the trusteeship of the petitioner is invalid and not in accordance with the provisions of Section 28 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 [for short “the Act”].

¶8

The respondents have filed a counter affidavit denying these allegations. The case of the respondents is that the appointment of the petitioner was not an appointment for a fixed term and is only an appointment for the time being. As such, the petitioner did not have any fixed tenure and could be removed at any point of time. It is contended that the Orders withdrawing the appointment of the petitioner by the Commissioner, and the subsequent orders of the Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner cannot be faulted, as the petitioner was removed for better management of the Ura Tank.

¶9

A perusal of the order withdrawing the appointment of the petitioner, dated 08.04.2021, clearly states that there were allegations made against the petitioner because of which action was initiated. The counter affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, states that an inquiry has been conducted in relation to the allegations made against the petitioner, and in view of the said inquiry a decision was taken to remove the petitioner in order to safeguard the interest of the Ura Tank. It is further stated, in the counter affidavit, that since

¶10

¶11

the income of the tank was more than 4,20,000/- there is need for appointment an Executive Officer.

¶12

A reading of the impugned order dated 08.04.2021 along with the pleadings in the counter affidavit, would show that action has been initiated against petitioner on the ground of mismanagement of the affairs of the Tank. In such a situation, Section 28 (1) (c) & (d) of the Act, would apply to the present case. In such circumstances, Section 28(2) of the Act, requires framing of a charge, communication of the said charge to the petitioner, opportunity of hearing being given to the petitioner, and thereafter, an order being passed.

¶13

In the present case, no such charge has been farmed nor has the petitioner been given an opportunity of hearing after being served with the said charge. As there has been a clear violation of the procedure set out under Section 28 of the Act, the impugned order in Rc.No.E2/COE-14022 (33)/1/2020, dated 08.04.2021 is set aside. However, it shall be open to the respondents to either follow the procedure set out in Section 28 of the Act or to withdraw the allegations against the petitioner and reconstitute the Trust Board with or without the petitioner.

¶14

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶15

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶16

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

¶17

01.09.2021 BSM

¶18

¶19

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶20

WRIT PETITION No.10175 of 2021

¶21

01-09-2021

¶22

BSM

M. Appa Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Appa Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. Lava Kumar Vs H. Kurma Rao

Varadhi Babu Kishore Vs Shri P Sitharama Anjaneyulu

Namburi Revamma Vs Namburi Somaraju

Bhimavarapu Ambi Swaroop Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chinnaswamy Ravindran Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dadi Devi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh