Disposed

Gudipati Sri Ramakrishna, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Jul 2021WP/11383/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the petition challenging the appointment of an Executive Officer of a Temple. It held such appointment is valid under Section 29 of the relevant Act and does not remove the petitioner as sole trustee. However, it directed the allegations of mismanagement not to be relied upon in future proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Directing that allegations of mismanagement against the petitioner shall not be relied upon in any other proceedings, though this does not preclude future enquiry.

Gudipati Sri Ramakrishna, Vs The… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION No.11383 of 2021

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The petitioner was appointed as single trustee of the 6^th respondent-Temple by the 4^th respondent vide his proceedings in Rc.No.A5/44/2003, dated 08.03.2003 as a founder family member and has been discharging the functions of a sole trustee since then. The 2^nd respondent vide proceedings in Rc.No.E2/15021/121/2021, dated 06.06.2021 had appointed the 5^th respondent as the Executive Officer of the 6^th respondent-Temple. Aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶4

Sri T.V.V.Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order has to be set aside on two grounds. Firstly, the 5^th respondent was appointed as an Executive Officer without notice to the petitioner, and secondly, on the ground that the petitioner cannot be removed as a trustee without proper notice being given to the petitioner.

¶5

Elaborating on the first ground Sri T.V.V.Koteswara Rao, submits that allegations made against the petitioner in the impugned order are untrue and the order has been passed without an opportunity being given to the petitioner to rebut the said allegations which, if uncontroverted would become final against the petitioner.

¶6

RRR,J2 W.P.No.11383 of 2021

¶7

Elaborating on the 2^nd ground, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned proceedings direct the Executive Officer to take charge of all assets and records of the 6^th respondent-Temple and effectively divorce the petitioner from all management of the affairs of the temple. He further submits that this amounts to removal of the petitioner as sole trustee of the 6^th respondent-Temple. He submits that the entire exercise is a malafide exercise carried out on account of the fact that the petitioner as trustee of the 6^th respondentTemple had filed W.P.No.9423 of 2021 pointing out to the irregularities being committed by the Revenue Authorities and the Panchayat Raj Department. He submits that on account of this writ petition, the entire exercise of appointment of an Executive Officer has been carried out.

¶8

Heard Sri T.V.V.Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6.

¶9

Section 29 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’) provides for appointment of an Executive Officer and Section 29(3)(i)(b) stipulates that the Executive Officer shall be responsible for the records and assets of the Endowment Institution. In the circumstances, the directions given in the impugned order for appointment of an Executive Officer and for a direction to the Executive Officer to take charge of the assets and records of the 6^th respondent-Temple are in accordance with

¶10

RRR,J3 W.P.No.11383 of 2021

¶11

the provisions of Section 29 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987, and as such, do not require any further interference by this Court.

¶12

As far as the apprehension that the petitioner ceases to be a sole trustee of the temple is concerned, the appointment of an Executive Officer does not in any manner result in the removal of the petitioner as the sole trustee. He continues as a sole trustee. The further apprehension of the petitioner that he would have no role in the management of the temple and the entire management has been taken over by the executive officer under the impugned order is also misplaced.

¶13

Section 29(3)(b)(i)(a) of Andhra Pradesh Charitable

¶14

and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 reads as follows:

¶15

“The Executive Officer appointed under this Section shall be responsible for carrying out all lawful directions issued by such trustee from time to time”.

¶16

This provision makes it amply clear that the Executive Officer has to work under the supervision and direction of the trustee.

¶17

The only issue which remains now is the question of the allegations made against the petitioner in the impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no notice was given to the petitioner prior to the passing of the order. Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel submits

¶18

¶19

RRR,J W.P.No.11383 of 2021

¶20

that an enquiry was conducted after due notice, and as such, the allegations cannot be accepted.

¶21

Striking a balance between the aforesaid two contentions, it would be appropriate to direct that the allegations of mismanagement against the petitioner shall not be relied upon in any other proceedings. This order shall not preclude any further enquiry, if thought necessary.

¶22

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

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

¶24

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

¶25

06.07.2021 SDP

¶26

RRR,J5 W.P.No.11383 of 2021

¶27

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶28

WRIT PETITION No.11383 of 2021

¶29

06-07-2021

¶30

SDP

Gudipati Sri Ramakrishna, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gudipati Sri Ramakrishna, 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

Ginjala Bhoomayya Vs the State of Ap

G J Moses Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Lagadapati Narayanaswamy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Kodali Seetaramaiah, Vs Dr.P.Venkata Rami Reddy

Dr. Gudipati Swamy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. K.Beeran Kutty, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh