Sri Gollapalli Chalapathi Sarma Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

dated 25.01.2023 proposing to conduct a sealed tender and public auction on 06.02.2023 for license hold rights to collect the coconut halves, jiggery,

¶24

2

¶25

crystal jiggery and cloths offered by the devotees to the deity for a period of one year commencing from 08.02.2023 to 07.02.2024 as the same is arbitrary and illegal.

¶26

Whereas, W.P.No.2137 of 2024 is filed challenging the notification dated 25.01.2024 for conducting public auction on 05.02.2024 for license rights of collecting coconut halves, jiggery, alum jiggery and sacred clothes in the 4^th respondent temple on 05.02.2024 for a period of one year from 08.02.2024 to 07.02.2025 as illegal and arbitrary.

¶27

W.P.No.2633 of 2025 is filed challenging the auction notification dated 25.01.2025 for conducting public auction on 06.02.2025 for license rights of collecting coconut halves, jiggery, alum jiggery and sacred clothes in the 4^th respondent temple on 06.02.2025 for a period of one year from 08.02.2025 to 07.02.2026 as illegal and arbitrary.

¶28

Since the facts in all the writ petitions are similar and identical, therefore, W.P.No.2633 of 2025 is taken as lead case, and the facts therein are hereinafter referred to for convenience.

¶29

Brief facts of the case are that the grandfather of the petitioners constructed the 4^th respondent temple. Later, the petitioners’ father developed the temple and performing archakatvam hereditarily and used to manage the affairs of the 4^th respondent temple. The petitioners’ grandfather has executed a will in favour of petitioners’ father regarding hereditary

¶30

3

¶31

archakatvam and management of the temple in the year 2001. Thereafter, the petitioners’ father executed a will in the year 2021, continuing hereditary rights in petitioners’ favour. While so, the Endowment Officials tried to interfere with management and archakatvam services in the 4^th respondent temple. Hence, the petitioners’ father filed O.A.No.90/2012 and obtained interim orders in I.A.No.285/2012 on 01.03.2012 and thereafter, the tribunal passed common order in I.A.No.1283/2013 and I.A.No.285/2012 on 22.07.2013, directing to pay Rs.12,000/- salaries every month from Hundi collections to petitioners and their father. When the coconut halves were proposed to be put to public auction, the petitioners’ father challenged the said auction proposed to be held on 23.05.2015 by filing W.P.No.14938/2015 before this Court and obtained interim orders dated 21.05.2015. Later the said writ petition was disposed of as infructuous. Taking advantage of disposal of W.P.No.14938/2015, the 4^th respondent has issued notification dated 25.01.2023 for conducting auction of the coconut halves, jaggery, alum jaggery and sacred clothes on 06.02.2023. Challenging the same, the petitioners filed W.P.No.2584/2023 and this Court directed the petitioners to file an application before the Endowment Tribunal seeking stay. Accordingly, the petitioners filed applications and later, the said applications became infructuous.

¶32

While things stood thus, the temple authorities again issued notification on 25.01.2024 for conducting auction on 05.02.2024 for leasehold rights of

¶33

4

¶34

coconut halves, jaggery, alum jaggery and sacred clothes for a period of one year from 08.02.2024 to 07.02.2025. Challenging the same, the petitioners filed W.P.No.2137/2024 before this Court and obtained interim order, directing the respondents to conduct auction and with regard to the share the petitioners are directed to submit representation to the 2^nd respondent, and also held that, on receipt of the same, the respondents were directed to take an appropriate decision in respect of 4^th respondent temple within a period of four months. Thereafter, the 2^nd respondent issued notice to the petitioners vide Rc.No.B3/COE/12024(51)/33/2023, dated 15.05.2024 to attend enquiry on 17.05.2024, thereafter the same was again posted to 12.07.2024. On the same day, the petitioners filed written arguments in support of their claim vide E.No.9099045/2024 dated 12.07.2024, but no action has been taken. While the matter stood thus, the 4^th respondent has again issued notification for conducting auction on 06.02.2025 for license rights of collecting coconut halves, jaggery, alum jaggery and sacred clothes on 06.02.2025 for a period of one year from 08.02.2025 to 07.02.2026. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶35

This Court, vide order, dated 30.01.2024, has granted the following interim order in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.No.2137 of 2024:

¶36

“In view of the above said facts and circumstances, the auction shall go on as it is pursuant to the auction notice dated 25.01.2024. However, it does not preclude for the petitioners to make a representation to the 2^nd respondent seeking a share out of the income derived in the above said auction in respect of the above said offerings by showing the sufficient reasons for the same along with the necessary documents in support of their

¶37

5

¶38

claim. Such representation can be made by the petitioners within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Notwithstanding the pendency of this writ petition, the 2^nd respondent-Commissioner shall conduct/cause enquiry into the matter and upon consideration of the facts and circumstances and upon hearing all the parties concerned including the petitioners and upon verification of the income of the temple and specifically the income on the offerings, an appropriate decision shall be taken in respect of the 4^th respondent-Temple objectively strictly in accordance with law within a period of four (04) months thereafter from the date of receipt of such representation from the petitioners.”

¶39

Heard Mr.D.V.Sasidhar, learned counsel for the petitioners and

¶40

Mr.P.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments, for the respondents.

¶41

On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petitions, submits that, the hereditary system followed in the temple for the past several years that the coconuts offered to the deity is broken and one piece is given to the devotees towards prasadam and one will be retained by the archakas. Further the jiggery offered to the deity is made into pieces and half is poured on the idol along with panchamrutams and half is offered deity and given to the devotees towards prasadam. Further the alum jiggery is also distributed as prasadam to the devotees and some portion will be poured in the water along with doorva and offered as teerdam to the devotees. He further submits that the petitioners are rendering hereditary archakatvam in the temple and collecting coconut halves, jiggery, etc., customarily and rendered services. The present impugned auction notice is issued by the Executive Officer of the 4^th respondent without any notice to our Archaka families and is against the

¶42

6

¶43

principles of natural justice. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.

¶44

Per Contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader vehemently opposed for grant of any relief in the present writ petitions and furnished a copy of written instructions vide Lr.in Rc.No.B1/12024(51)/89/2023, dated 04.02.2025 and submits that, in compliance of the order of this Court dated 30.01.2024 passed in I.A.No.1/2024 in W.P.No.2137/2024, the 2^nd respondent issued notice in Rc.No.B3/COE-12024(51)/89/2023,,dated 15.05.2024, to the petitioners to attend the enquiry on 17.05.2024, and on the same day, the petitioners have submitted a representation to the 2^nd respondent requesting for postponement of the proposed enquiry. Considering the same, the 2^nd respondent vide office memo in Rc.No.B3/12024(51)/89/2023, dated 21.05.2024, postponed the enquiry to 24.05.2024. He further submits that, the petitioners have submitted additional representations dated 24.05.2024, 04.06.2024, 20.06.2024 and 04.07.2024 requesting for extension of time for submitting written arguments on 12.07.2024. He further submits that the Commissioner, who had conducted hearing on 17.05.2024 and 24.05.2024 has not passed final orders and he was transferred recently. He further submits that if this Court grants one month’s time, the 2^nd respondent will conduct a fresh hearing for the petitioners and dispose of their representations in accordance with the interim order dated 30.01.2024, passed in I.A.No.1/2024 in W.P.No.2137/2024.

¶45

7

¶46

11. Learned Assistant Government Pleader apprises this Court that,

¶47

till finalization of the petitioners’ representations, the proposed public auction which is scheduled to be held on 06.02.2025 will be postponed. Therefore, learned Assistant Government Pleader requests this Court by recording the same, the writ petitions may be closed.

¶48

12. Considering the submissions of both the learned counsels and

¶49

upon perusing the entire material on record, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petitions with the following directions:

¶50

a) The 2^nd respondent to conduct a fresh hearing for the petitioners and dispose of their representations in accordance with the interim order dated 30.01.2024, passed in I.A.No.1/2024 in W.P.No.2137/2024, within a period of one (01) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶51

b) Till then, the respondents are directed not to conduct any further auction.

¶52

With the above directions, the Writ Petitions are disposed of.

¶53

There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶54

__________________________ Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J

¶55

BMS

Sri Gollapalli Chalapathi Sarma v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Gollapalli Chalapathi Sarma v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.M.Exports Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Shiva Shakti Stones India Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Aithepalli Bala Subramanyam, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gollapalli Chalapathi Sarma Vs the State of Ap

Gollapalli Chalapathi Sarma Vs the State of Ap

Y. Manjunath, Vs the State of Ap