Allowed

Midde Sankaraiah, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Oct 2021WP/24605/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the appointment of an Executive Officer to a temple with low income. The Court set aside the order for violating Section 29 of the AP CHRIE Act due to lack of a speaking order and proper application of mind by the Commissioner.

What did the court decide?

The impugned proceedings in R.C.No.E1/11206/2015 dated 17.06.2015 were set aside and remitted to the Commissioner to consider the issue afresh.

Midde Sankaraiah, Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.24605 of 2015

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioners are said to be managing Sri Moola Peddamma Temple in W.Govindinne Village, Dornipadu Mandal, Kurnool District. The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the respondents in appointing an Executive Officer to the temple. It is their case that appointment of such an Executive Officer is not necessary as the temple has an income of less than Rs.2,00,000/- and that such an appointment would effect the rituals and other activities of the temples.

¶5

Ms. S.Anvesha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would also submit that the order of appointment of the Executive Officer dated 17.06.2015 is not an order of the Commissioner of Endowments, and as such the said order would have to go on the ground that the said order is violative of Section 29 of The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act,1987 [for the short “the Act”] which requires the Commissioner to pass a speaking order enumerating the circumstances mentioned in Section 29, before an Executive Officer is appointed to a temple which has an income of less than Rs.2,00,000/-.

¶6

An Executive Officer had been appointed for this temple under proceeding vide R.C.No.E1/11206/2015, dated 17.06.2015. This order is signed by a Deputy Commissioner in the office of the Commissioner. However, there is a noting above

¶7

¶8

the said signature stating “by order of the Commissioner”. The learned Government Pleader for Endowments has produced the note file relating to this order. The note file which is in telugu, at para-5 recommends the appointment of an Executive Officer for the temple and for grouping this temple with group temples Kovalakunta-2. Para-6 of the said note file has a noting that “in the circumstances reported by the AC, para-5 may be considered”. Para-7 simply notes “agreed “. Para-8 notes “as per the above order, draft put up below for approval.” There are further paragraphs in this note file which ends with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Kurnool to conduct an independent enquiry and a subsequent note that the draft is put up for approval.

¶9

A perusal of this note file shows a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. It is an admitted fact that the temple in question has been published under Section 6 (c) of the Act, classifying the temple as a temple which has an income of less than of Rs.2,00,000/-. Section 29 of the Act, mandates that an Executive Officer can be appointed to an institution or Endowment which has an income of less than Rs.2,00,000/-, only by the Commissioner of the Endowments. This appointment is to be made only if the institution has substantial immovable property or the Commissioner is satisfied that such appointment is necessary in the interests of the better administration of the institution or for any other reason to be recorded in writing.

¶10

¶11

The note file shows that a note has been prepared for the consideration of the Commissioner of the Endowments with a recommendation to appoint an Executive Officer. There are two notings thereafter. The first noting says that the said recommendation may be considered. The second noting says “agreed”. It is not clear as to which noting is the noting of the Commissioner. This court would have to hazard a case that it is the noting “agreed” which is the noting of the Commissioner of Endowments.

¶12

In these circumstances, it must be held that the Commissioner has not applied his mind nor has the Commissioner passed an order setting out the reasons for appointing an Executive Officer. As this requirement under Section 29 of the Act, has not been complied, the impugned proceedings in R.C.No.E1/11206/2015 dated 17.06.2015, are hereby set aside, leaving it open to the Commissioner of Endowments to consider the issue afresh and pass appropriate orders if it is thought necessary.

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

¶16

04.10.2021 BSM

¶17

¶18

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶19

WRIT PETITION No.24605 of 2015

¶20

04-10-2021

¶21

BSM

Midde Sankaraiah, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Midde Sankaraiah, 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

Kantubhukta Sivannarayana Vs The State of A.P

Kantubhukta Sivannarayana Vs .The State of A.P

Kantubhukta Sivannarayana Vs The State of A.P

Darru Paaramma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P.v.Subba NaiduATP.Venkata Subbaiah (died) per lrs 4 to 6 Vs Pamidi Subbaiah

Manchineni Srihari Vs Manchineni Kesava Rao