Allowed

C Venkata Reddy v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Jul 2025WP/16282/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a Chief Engineer's letter styling a renovation committee member as President of a temple committee. The court held the designation was contrary to G.O.Rt.No.260, which appointed twelve members without conferring offices, set aside the impugned proceedings and directed TTD not to address committee members with designations.

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceedings dated 31.05.2025 set aside; TTD directed to desist from addressing a committee member with any designation.

C Venkata Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

¶1

APHC010323472025

¶2

[3331]

¶3

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

¶4

MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 16282/2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

C VENKATA REDDY, S/O. LATE NARAYANA REDDY, AGE 50 YEARS. FOUNDER FAMILY MEMBER OF SRI SEETHARAMANJANEYASWAMYVARI DEVASTHANAM, GUNDEMADAKALA VILLAGE,VINJAMURU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶10

CHIMALA NARAYANA REDDY,, S/O VENKATA RAMANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O PEDDAMACHANURU, MARRIPADU, NELLORE

¶11

POLU NAGESWARA RAO,, S/O NAGI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION R/O GUNDEMADAKALA VILLAGE, VINJAMURU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT

¶12

CHIMALA VENKATA KRISHNAREDDY,, S/O RAMANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O GUNDEMADAKALA VILLAGE, VINJAMURU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRIC

¶13

...PETITIONER(S)

¶14

AND

¶15

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (ENDOWMENTS) DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P.

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT,

¶17

¶18

GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA.

¶19

TIRUMALA TIRUPATHI DEVASTHANAM, TIRUMALA CHITTORE DISTRICT. REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICE

¶20

SRI SITA RAMA ANJANEYASWAMY TEMPLE, GUNDEMADAKALA VILLAGE, VINJAMURU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER

¶21

SRI SEETHARAMA SWAMY VARI DEVASTHANAM COMMITTEE, GUNDEMADAKALA VILLAGE, VINJAMURU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT OBUL REDDY, R/O GUNDEMADAKALA VILLAGE, VINJAMURU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT

¶22

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶24

1.D V SASIDHAR

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI

¶27

2.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

¶28

3.V.DYUMANI (SC for TTD)

¶29

The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER:

¶30

Heard Sri D.V. Sasidhar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri Pala Ashoka Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 & 2, Smt. V.Dyumani, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.3, Smt. A.D. Subashini, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.4 and Sri Sivaprasad Reddy Venati, learned Counsel for Respondent No.5. 2. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would submit that he has approached this Count by filing W.P.No.27746 of 2021 challenging sanction of Rs.100 lakhs for reconstruction of Sri Seetharama Swamy Vari Temple at Gundemadakala Village, Vinjamuru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District at the behest of the 5^th Respondent therein i.e., one Sri Seetharama Swamy Temple

¶31

¶32

Committee. Vide Order dated 11.09.2023 (Ex.P.3), the said Writ Petition was dismissed.

¶33

The Writ Petitioner, having been aggrieved by the dismissal of the Writ Petition bearing W.P.No.27746 of 2021, had filed Writ Appeal in W.A.No.1026 of 2023. The Division Bench of this Court was pleased to pass the following Order on 20.10.2023 (Ex.P.2):

¶34

“We, therefore, find that the findings recorded by the writ Court are unsustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, the judgment and order impugned is set aside with a direction to the Government to constitute a committee in terms of Section 146 of the Act. The petitioner would continue to remain associated with the temple in its functioning as a trustee. The inclusion of the petitioner in the Renovation Committee would be a subject which would be decided by the Government while constituting such a committee. The Government is, therefore, directed to constitute a committee not later than one month from today.”

¶35

In compliance with the Order of the Division Bench, dated 20.10.2023, the Respondent No.1 has issued G.O.Rt.No.260, dated 01.03.2024 (which is produced across the table).

¶36

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, vide the said G.O.Rt.No.260, has constituted a twelve member Renovation Committee under Section 146 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. The said Committee constituted by the Government has collected funds of about 25 lakhs from private persons. The amount of Rs.25 lakhs collected by the private parties was transferred to the account of the Respondent No.3. As per the scheme of TTD, the amount collected from the private donors shall be matched with the funds of the TTD multiplied by three times. Therefore, TTD was required to contribute Rs.75 lakhs, thereby totalling to one crore rupees.

¶37

The Committee appointed under G.O.Rt.No.260 has deposited the private contribution of Rs.25 lakhs into the Account of the TTD styled as

¶38

¶39

„Srivani Trust‟. Thereafter, the Srivani Trust in Res No.18 has sanctioned Rs.100 lakhs for work of Reconstruction of Sri Seetha Rama Swamy Temple (with 25% Public Contribution and 75% from Srivani Trust). To this effect, the Chief Engineer had addressed a Letter on 31.05.2025 to Sri A. Obul Reddy (Member of the Renovation Committee) by describing him as the “President” of “Sri Seetha Rama Swamy Temple Committee”.

¶40

The present Writ Petition is filed by the Writ Petitioner, whose name is found in Serial No.11 of the Members under G.O.Rt.No.260, dated 01.03.2024, taking objection to the Letter written by the Chief Engineer styling one Sri A. Obul Reddy as a President. It is his contention that the name of Sri A.Obul Reddy is at Serial No.1 in the list of Renovation Committee Members in G.O.Rt.No.260.

¶41

It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner that no such designation as President has ever been conferred on the said person (Unofficial Respondent) under G.O.Rt.No.260 and therefore, Proceedings of the Chief Engineer ought not to have mentioned the name of Sri A.Obul Reddy as the “President”.

¶42

This Court has perused the Impugned Proceedings dated 31.05.2025 (Ex.P.5) addressed by the Chief Engineer addressed to Sri A. Obul Reddy, “President, Sri Seetha Rama Swamy Temple Committee”, Gundemadakala Village, Vimjamur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

¶43

This Court has also perused the G.O.Rt.No.260. It is noticed that the Government has never designated anyone to be a President etc. The Government has appointed 12 Members, among whom the name of Sri A.Obul Reddy is mentioned at Serial No.1 and the name of the Writ Petitioner is mentioned at Serial No.11.

¶44

In view of these facts, this Court is in agreement with the contention of Sri D.V. Sasidhar, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner that the Chief Engineer ought not to have addressed a Letter to Sri A.Obul Reddy by describing him as “President, Sri Seetha Rama Swamy Temple Committee”.

¶45

¶46

Hence, the Impugned Proceedings, dated 31.05.2025 (Ex.P.1) addressed by the Chief Engineer to a Member of the Renovation Committee, thereby styling him as the President, is contrary to G.O.Rt.No.260, dated 01.03.2024. Accordingly, the said Proceedings is set aside.

¶47

In this view of the matter, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam, Tiruamala, (Respondent No.3) is directed to desist from the practice of addressing a Member of the Committee with any designation henceforth.

¶48

With these observations and directions, the Writ Petition stands allowed. No order as to costs.

¶49

Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.

¶50

¶51

GANNAMANENIRAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J

Dt: 14.07.2025

DSV

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

¶57

WRIT PETITION No.16282 of 2025

14.07.2025

DSV

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI

¶62

MAIN CASE No.W.P.No.16282 of 2025

¶63

PROCEEDING SHEET

¶64

Sl. No	DATE	ORDER
03.	14.07.2025	GRKP, J
		Writ Petition is allowed.
		(vide separate order)
		DSV	___________ GRKP, J

¶65

C Venkata Reddy v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C Venkata 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

M/S. Raja reddy constructions, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gandikota Rama Subbaiah Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Pasupuleti Venkateswara Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

V. Ramakrishna Reddy, Vs Prl.Secy., Energy Dept., Hyd., & 5 Others

Company Secy, M/S. Sri Rayalaseema Alkalies & Allied Chemica Vs Secy, Aperc, Hyderabad & 4 Others

Reliance Communication Ltd, Hyd & Another Vs Md, Apspdcl, Guntur Dist & 2 Others