Disposed

Tatikonda Brahma Lingaswamy, s/o Nagaraju, v. The Commissioner of Endowments, Andhra

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Nov 2024WP/26101/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court disposed of the writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus against constituting a board of trustees for a temple, granting the petitioner liberty to challenge the rejection of his exemption application.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to challenge the rejection order for exemption under Section 15 of the Endowments Act.

Tatikonda Brahma Lingaswamy, s/o… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

[3310]

¶2

APHC010098542015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY ,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 26101/2015

¶8

Between:

¶9

Tatikonda Brahma Lingaswamy, S/o Nagaraju,

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The Commissioner Of Endowments Andhra and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶13

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶14

1.M VIDYASAGAR

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶16

1.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP)

¶17

2.ELEVATED AS JUDGE

¶18

The Court made the following Order:

¶19

The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

¶20

seeking the following relief:

¶21

“…. . to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 1^st respondent i.e., Commissioner of Endowments, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in issuing Notification in Rc.No.B1/16201/2015-3, dated 06-08-2015 in Form-1 read with Rule 4(1) under Sec.15 of the Endowments Act calling for applications from the public for being appointed as trustees to Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Narsipatnam Town and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District

¶22

¶23

bearing Sl.No.21 in Annexure as bad. Illegal. arbitrary and opposed to law …….”

¶24

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner’s father was recognized as member of founder’s family vide proceedings issued by the Board of Commission of Hindu Religious Endowments, Cathedral Post, Madras in Board’s Order No.1733, dated 26.07.1937. After the demise of father of the petitioner, the petitioner herein obtained a declaration from the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, who issued proceedings in Rc.No.A3/3476/97/Admn., dated 31.08.1998 declaring the petitioner herein as a member of the founder’s family to Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Narsipatnam Village and Mandal, Visakhapatnam district. The petitioner filed an application in the year 2003 before the 3^rd respondent seeking exemption of Section 154 of the Act, which is a proviso empowering the various authorities to constitute a board of trustees to the temple and the same is pending final consideration. While so, the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments issued notification dated 18.07.2003 to constitue a board of trustees calling for the applications. Assailing the same, the petitioner filed WP.No.16160 of 2003 before this Court and this Court disposed off the writ petition by an order dated 24.09.2003, directing the 3^rd respondent herein to consider the application filed by the petitioner on 03.02.2003. The Commissioner of Endowments, again issued a notification dated 20.03.2010

¶25

¶26

for constituting board of trustees and the petitioner once again filed WP.No.10702 of 2010 and this Court passed interim orders in WPMP.No.13702 of 2010 in WP.No.10702 of 2010 by an order dated 30.04.2010, directing the respondents in the writ petition not to constitute a board of trustees till the petitioner’s application seeking exemption under Section 15 of the Act is disposed off. While the orders of this Court were still subsisting, the 1^st respondent again issued notification vide Rc.N.B1/16201/2015-3, dated 06.08.2015 calling for applications from the public for being considered for trusteeship to Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Narsipatnam, Narsipatnam Town and Mandal, Visakhapatnam district. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶27

This Court, vide order, dated 18.08.2015, has granted interim order, directing the respondents not to take any further steps in pursuant to the impuged proceedings, dated 06.08.2015.

¶28

The 2^nd respondent filed counter affidavit denying all the allegations made in the counter affidavit and mainly contended that, the Government vide Memo No.18902/Endts.II(1)/2012, dated 26.09.2015 has passed a detailed order rejecting the application of the petitioner for exemption under Section 15 and directed the Commissioner to constitute trust board to Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam district. It is further contended

¶29

¶30

that the period of non-hereditary trusteeship is only for two years and by virtue of the memo of the Government dated 26.09.2015 rejecting the application of the petitioner for exemption under Section 15 of Act 30/87, the present writ petition has become infructuous. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶31

Heard Mr.M.Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the petitioner, who appeared virtually through video conferencing and Mr.P.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 3.

¶32

On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petition, requests this Court to grant liberty to the petitioner to challenge the rejection order vide Memo No.18902/Endts.II(1)/ 2012, dated 26.09.2015 before the concerned authorities.

¶33

Per Contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader vehemently opposed for grant of any relief in the present Writ Petition and prayed to dismiss the same.

¶34

On considering the submissions of both counsels and upon perusing the material on record, this Court is inclined to dispose of the present writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the rejection order before the concerned authorities, in accordance with law.

¶35

¶36

With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶37

It is made clear that the interim order passed by this Court is hereby vacated.

¶38

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

¶39

¶40

Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J

¶41

BMS

Tatikonda Brahma Lingaswamy, s/o Nagaraju, v. The Commissioner of Endowments, Andhra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tatikonda Brahma Lingaswamy, s/o Nagaraju, v. The Commissioner of Endowments, Andhra

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

Domathoti Radhakrishna Venkata Lakshmi Devi, Vs The District Collector and District Magistrate

D. Sundar Rami Reddy, Spsr Nellore Dist. Vs the State of a.P.,Mines,Hyd., & Anr.

M Haritha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Pujari Balachandar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kunapareddy Nan Rao @ Narayana Rao Vs The Registrar

Neelam Laxmana Rao, Eg District & 5 Others Vs Prl. Secretary, Endowments Dept., Hyd & 3 Others