Dismissed

Gudimetla Rama Kanaka Reddy v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Sept 2023WP/11654/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging temple renovation without a statutory committee under the Endowments Act away. The bench held that committee constitution is at the Government's discretion and authorities monitored the reconstruction, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking writ of mandamus to declare the action for temple renovation illegal and to command authorities to renovate upalayams is dism

Gudimetla Rama Kanaka Reddy Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 11654 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Gudimetla Rama Kanaka Reddy, s/o Krishna Reddy, Hindu, aged 49 years, R/o Velagaleru Village, Penumantramandalam, West Godavari district. .

¶9

V. S. Rama Krishna, s/o Sarveswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 62 years, R/o Vanampalli village, Penumantramandalam, West Godavari district.

¶10

...PETITIONER(S)

¶11

AND

¶12

I. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by it's Principal Secretary (Endowments), Secretariat buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi.

¶13

1. The Commssioner, Endowments department, Gollapudi, Vijayawada.

¶14

The Deputy Commissioner, Endowments department.

¶15

-4. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments department, Bhimavaram, West Godavari district.

¶16

Sri Rameswara Swamy Temple, Velagaleru village, Mehumantramandalam, West Godavari district. Rep. by it's Executive Officer.

¶17

K. Janaki Rama Raju, s/o Viswanadha Raju, Hindu, aged about 56 years, O/o Executive Officer,Sri Rameswara Swamy Temple, Velagaleru village, Menumantramandalam, West Godavari district.

¶18

Madhu Vani , W/o. Vijaya Kumar Reddy, Occ.Sarpanch, Velegaleru Village, Penumantra Mandal, West Godavari, A.P.- 534122.

¶19

Kovvuri Putra Reddy, S/o Venkata Reddy, Occ. Business, R/o H.No.2-18, Kovvuri Vari Veedi, Penumantra, West Godavari, A.P.-534122.

¶20

Gudimetla Veerreddy, S/o Rami Reddy, Occ. Business, R/o H.No. 3-6, Reddy Ramalayam, Velegaleru, Penumantra, West Godavari, A.P.-534122.

¶21

Donga Bhasker Rao, S/o. Satyanarayana, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.2-62, T-P-Gudem Road, Velegaleru, Penumantra, West Godavari, A.P.-534122.

¶22

II. Chelluri Adimurthy, S/o. Suryanarayana, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.1-130/1, Main Road, Velegaleru, Penumantra, West Godavari, A.P.-534122.

¶23

Poluparthi Venkata Srinivas, S/o P. Satyanarayana, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.3-120, Settibalijiaramalayam, Velegaleru, Penumantra, West Godavari, A.P.-534122.

¶24

Bhyravabhottala Thirumala Rama Linga Durga Prasad, S/o. Malleswara Rao, Occ. Business, R/o.H.No.1-71, Sivalayam Road, Sivalayam, Velegaleru, Penumantra, West Godavari, A.P.-534122. (RR 7 to 13 are impleaded as per the Order of this Court dt.31.07.2023 vide order passed in I.A.No.3 of 2023)

¶25

...RESPONDENTS

¶26

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue of WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the respondent officials in proceeding with the renovation of the 5'’ respondent temple without following the provisions and rules made thereunder as illegal, arbitrary, unlawful, violative of Section 146 of AP Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 and rules made thereunder, contrary to Articles 14, 25 and 26 of Constitution of India and consequently COMMAND the Respondent authorities to follow the provisions and rules of the Act provided for renovation of a religious institution to also renovate the all the existing upalayams of the 5’’ respondent temple in the interest of justice.

¶27

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶28

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to DIRECT the respondent officials not to remove the Sri Surya Yajnavalkya Panchayatana temple without the permission of this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice.

¶29

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶30

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to DIRECT the respondent officials not to proceed with renovation of the 5th respondent temple violating Section 146 of AP Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 and rules made thereunder in the interest of justice.

¶31

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. J.V. PHANIDATH

¶32

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

¶33

Counsel for the Respondents 5&6: SRI. KANDA SRINIVASU

¶34

Counsel for the Respondents 7 to 13: SRI. M.R.S. SRINIVAS

¶35

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶36

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

¶37

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶38

WRIT PETITION No. 11654 OF 2023

¶39

Between * 1. Gudimetla Rama Kanaka Reddy, S/o. Krishna Reddy, Hindu, Aged 49 years, R/o. Velagaleru Village, Penumantra Mandal, West Godavari District and another.

¶40

... Petitioners

¶41

Versus

¶42

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Endowments), Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati and twelve (12) others.

¶43

... Respondents

¶44

Sri J.V.Phanidath GP for Endowments

¶45

Counsel for the petitioners Sri J.V.Phanidath Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 GP for Endowments Counsel for respondent Nos. 5 8b 6 Standing Counsel Counsel for respondent Nos.7 to 13 : Sri M.R.S.Srinivas

¶46

ORDER

¶47

The present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:

¶48

"... to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the respondent officials in proceeding with

¶49

Page 2 of 13

¶50

SRSJ WPNo.11654 of 2023

¶51

the renovation of the 5* respondent temple without following the provisions and rules made there under as illegal, arbitrary, unlawful, violative of Section 146 of AP Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 and rules made there under contrary to Articles 14, 25 and 26 of Constitution of India and consequently COMMAND the Respondent authorities to follow the provisions and rules of the Act provided for renovation of a religious institution to also renovate the all the existing upalayams of the Sth respondent temple in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders ...”

¶52

2. In the affidavit it was contended, inter-alia, that petitioners are devotees of the 5^^ respondent. As per the history of the temple, Sri Rameswara Swamy along with Parvathi ammavaru incarnated about 1200 years ago and the temple was constructed subsequently. Later, certain upalayalu were constructed. On occasions like Maha Sivaratri, Karthika Masam and on other special days, along with main deities, upalaya deities are also worshipped specially. The temple has undergone several renovations. Villagers have taken up renovation of the temple. The 2^^ respondent vide proceedings in R.S.No.COE/759/2022-21

¶53

¶54

SRSJ WPNo.11654 of 2023

¶55

z n

¶56

Page 3 of 13

¶57

dated 20.10.2022 approved the sanction of an amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore) from Common Good Fund (for short ‘CGF’) for renovation of the 5*^ respondent temple subject to deposit of required matching contribution. Without constituting committee as mandated under Section 146 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Act 30 of 1987) (for short ‘the Act’), reconstruction of the temple is proceeded with and hence, the above writ petition is filed.

¶58

Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No.5. It was contended that the 5* respondent Temple was published under Section 6 (c) (ii) of the Act and it is under the administrative control of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department. The 5^^ respondent temple was registered under Section 43 of the Act and the same was approved by the 4* respondent vide R.Dis.No.Al/11083/09 dated 28.12.2009. The 5* respondent temple has an extent of Ac.4.63 cents out of which an extent of Ac.2.78 cents was allotted to Archakas for rendering Archakatwam service. The 5? respondent temple is getting an income of Rs.54,000/- per abnum. The respondent temple was constructed about

¶59

Page 4 of 13

¶60

SRSJ WPNo. 11654 of 2023

¶61

150 years back and now it is 6 feet low from the road. In the rainy season water enters the temple premises. As a result, the compound wall and other structures ofc the temple got damaged. Villagers conducted Gramasabha in presence of the Village Sarpanch and the MPTC member on 17.08.2022 and decided to reconstruct the 5*** respondent temple with CGF grant by undertaking to make Matching Contribution. Accordingly, villagers contributed an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs) towards Matching Contribution fund which was handed over to the 5ti» respondent temple. The Executive Officer of the 5th respondent temple deposited Rupees Fifty Lakhs that is Matching contribution in the temple account on 10.11.2022. Based on the resolution submitted by the villagers, the Executive Officer of the 5* respondent temple submitted a letter dated 17.08.2022 to release CGF fund for reconstruction of the 5^ respondent temple. The 4th respondent, in turn. addressed a letter in Rc.No.A4/1035/2022 dated 20.08.2022 to the Assistant Engineer and the Assistant Sthapathy, Endowments Department to prepare plans and estimates for

¶62

SRSJ WPNo. 11654 of2023

¶63

Page 5 of 13

¶64

reconstruction of the 5*** respondent temple and submit the same to the Deputy Executive Engineer, Endowments Department, Kakinada for according technical sanction.

¶65

The Assistant Engineer, Endowments Department, Eluru submitted line estimates of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the 4^^ respondent. The 4* respondent submitted report vide Rc.No.A4/1065/2022 dated 21.09.2022 to the 2*^^ respondent by enclosing line estimates for reconstruction of the 5th respondent temple and requested to sanction 2/3^^ amount of CGF. The CGF committee in its meeting held on 29.10.2022, examined the proposal made by the 4 respondent and sanctioned an amount of Rupees One Crore from CGF for reconstruction of the 5th respondent temple subject to deposit of Matching Contribution of Rupees 50 Lakhs within one month and issued proceedings vide Rc.No.COE/759/2022-21 dated 20.10.2022. The 2«‘t respondent in the capacity of Secretary cum Treasurer of CGF committee of Andhra Pradesh issued proceedings vide Rc.No.COE/759/2022-21 dated 12.12.2022 sanctioning financial aid of Rupees One Crore from CGF to the 5th respondent temple for reconstruction. Revised plan was approved by Sthapathy of

¶66

SRSJ WPNo.11654 of 2023

¶67

Page 6 of13

¶68

Endowments Department vide Rc.No.Q/COE/1495/2022 dated 01.03.2023, duly cancelling the earlier orders issued on 28.02.2023 and requested Deputy Executive Engineer, Endowments Department, Kakinada to prepare detailed estimate for the proposed work of reconstruction of the 5*^ respondent temple.

¶69

The Superintendent Engineer, Endowments

¶70

Department, Kakinada examined the record and issued estimate technical sanction orders vide Rc.No.AE/111/2023 dated 03.04.2023 for estimated amount of Rs. 150.00 lakhs. The authority requested the Executive Officer of the 5*^ respondent temple to call for tender through e-procurement as per rules. Two tenders were received and the same were submitted to the 2‘i‘‘ respondent through the Superintending Engineer, Endowments Department, Kakinada for approval. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶71

Respondent No.3 filed a separate counter affidavit and reiterated the contentions in the counter affidavit filed by the Executive Officer of the respondent. It was specifically contended that no Renovation Committee was constituted for the pi<^Q§e of reconstruction of the 5^^ respondent temple as

¶72

¶73

Page 7 of 13

¶74

SRSJ WPNo.1 1654 of 2023

¶75

the villagers of Velagaleru voluntarily came forward to donate the amount. The Executive Officer of the Sth respondent is taking care of day-to-day activities of the 5*^ respondent temple and -the Department is having separate Engineering Wing and Silpi Wing to supervise the reconstruction of temple. The entire process of reconstruction of the temple is under the supervision of Departmental Engineers and Sthapathis by duly following the process.

¶76

Reply affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioners to the counters filed by respondent Nos.3 and 5. It was reiterated that renovation process is started upon the Gramasabha resolution and hence, the entire process is unsustainable in law. The Renovation Committee must be constituted.

¶77

Heard Sri J.V.Phanidath, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondent Nos.l to 4 and Sri K.Srinivasu, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.5 and Sri M.Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.7 to 13.

¶78

Page 8 of 13

¶79

SRSJ WPNo. 11654 of 2023

¶80

Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that under Section 145 of the Act, the Government must constitute a Renovation Committee. The composition of the Committee in terms of office of the members of the committee has been delineated in the Rules i.e. Rules of Renovation Committee, 1987. However, the case at hand, without following the procedure under Section 146 and the Rules issued vide G.O.Ms.No.649 dated 08.09.1989, the temple reconstruction has been undertaken and the same is contrary to the procedure. He would further submit that without following the procedure, authorities are undertaking the construction activity.

¶81

Per contra, Sri K.Srinivasu, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.5 would submit that villagers conducted Gramasabha on 17.08.2022 and decided to reconstruct the 5^^ respondent temple. Accordingly, villagers contributed an amount of Rupees Fifty Lakhs. The 2"‘i respondent, on careful consideration of material, released an amount of Rupees One Crore for the reconstruction of the 5 respondent temple. The Executive Officer and the other authorities of the Endowments Department will supervise the

¶82

Page 9 of 13

¶83

SRSJ WPNo.11654 of 2023

¶84

day-to-day activities of the temple reconstruction. Learned Standing Counsel would submit that temple is now 6 feet below the road level and structure is in dilapidated condition.

¶85

Sri M.R.S.Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for unofficial respondents Nos.7 to 13 would submit that villagers contributed the amount voluntarily and intended to reconstruct the temple. Accordingly, they pooled up an amount of Rupees Fifty Lakhs and, handed over to the Executive Officer who, in turn, deposited the amount to the bank account of the deity. In fact, petitioners did not contribute a single rupee and filed writ petition with ulterior motives.

¶86

Section 146 of the Act which deals with constitution of

¶87

renovation committee and its liability is extracted here with:

¶88

Constitution of Renovation Committee and its liability -

¶89

(1) The Government may constitute a renovation

¶90

committee to any religious or charitable institution consisting of persons with qualifications prescribed in section 18 and subject to qualifications specified in section 19.

¶91

(2) The composition of the Committee, the term of the Office of the members of the Committee and other

¶92

Page 10 of 13

¶93

SRSJ WPNo. 11654 of2023

¶94

matters relating to the functions of the committee shall be such as may be prescribed.

¶95

(3) The provisions in Chapter VII except section 57 shall apply to the renovation committee.

¶96

Perus^ of the Section makes it clear that the Government may constitute a renovation committee to any religious arid charitable institutions consisting of persons with qualifications specified under Section 18 and subject to disqualification under Section 19. The term of the committee and the office members of the committee have been alienated in the rules of Reriovation Committee, 1987. Thus, the constitution of Renovation Committee is at the discretion of the Government.

¶97

The case at hand, the villagers of Velagaleru after conducting Gramasabha collected donations from the interested an amount of Rupees Fifty Lakhs and requested the respondent to release an amount of Rupees One Crore from CGF for reconstruction of the 5* respondent temple. In fact, the villagers collected Rupees Fifty Lakhs and handed over the amount to the Executive Officer of the 5th respondent temple who in turn, deposited the same to the bank account in the name of deity.

¶98

Page 11 of 13

¶99

SRSJ WPNo.11654 of 2023

¶100

The apprehension of the petitioners, as seen from the arguments, is that the funds collected may not be utilized properly. However, as seen from the counter affidavits of the Executive Qfficer of the S’* respondent temple and the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, the entire work regarding reconstruction of the temple wiU be monitored by the department and its Officials. Reconstruction of the temple will be done as per the procedure and under supervision of the Sthapathy as well as the Engineering Department of Endowments Department.

¶101

If a committee has been constituted under Section 146 of the Act, the committee will monitor the reconstruction activity.• As observed supra, constitution of committee is at the discretion of Government. However, the case at hand, as pointed out supra is the villagers came forward to reconstruct the building and contributed Rupees Fifty Lakhs and the Government has not constituted any committee under Section 146 of the Act. As seen from the counter affidavit of the 5* respondent, tenders are called for and two persons participated which would manifest that the authorities have been follo^ng the procedure.

¶102

• Vr

¶103

Page 12 of 13

¶104

SRSJ WPNo. 11654 of 2023

¶105

In view of the above discussion, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is liable to be

¶106

dismissed.

¶107

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶108

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous petitions

¶109

shall stand closed.

¶110

//TRUE COPY//

¶111

Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR

¶112

¶113

1 One CC to Sri. J.V. Phaniduth Advocate [OPUC] 2' Two CCS to GP for Endowments, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 3 One CC to Sri. Kanda Srinivasu, Standing Counsel [OPl^] 4. One CC to Sri, M.R.S. Srinivas, Standing Counsel [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies Sdkr

HIGH COURT

DATED:04/09/2023

ORDER

WP.No.11654 of 2023

¶118

i
16 SEP 20?'j m]
. Current Section

¶119

DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Gudimetla Rama Kanaka Reddy v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gudimetla Rama Kanaka Reddy 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

Sri Kandala Venkata Ramana, Vs The State of A.P

Perumalla Devi Prasad Ramakrishna Mohan Gupta Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

T Lakshmi Narayana Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Tuta Naga Ramachandra Rao Vs State of Ap

Zilla Prabhakara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kota Obul Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh