H Ramasubrahmanyam Vs the State of Ap

over 100 years ago by his grandfather who not only founded the temple but also contributed to the development of the temple significantly. Presently income of the temple is between 19 to 22 lakhs. After their life time, the

¶26

2

¶27

petitioner has been performing rituals as per the traditions with his own funds rendering the services to the temple.

¶28

The petitioner in support of his contention relies on the provisions of Explanation I to Section 17 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short “the Act”). Under the said provision, the word “Founder” is defined as –

¶29

“ 17. Procedure for making appointments of trustees and their term:- (1) In making the appointment of trustees under Section 15, the Government, the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner, as the case may be, shall have due regard to the religious denomination or any such section thereof to which the institution belongs or the endowment is made and the wishes of the founder:

¶30

Provided that the founder or one of the members of the family of the founder, if qualified as prescribed shall be appointed as one of the Trustees.

¶31

“ Explanation I:- ‘Founder’ means.- a) in respect of Institution or Endowments existing at the commencement of this Act, the person who was recognized as Hereditary Trustee under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 or a Member of his family recognized by the Competent Authority;

¶32

(b) In respect of an Institution or Endowment established after such commencement, the person who has founded such Institution or Endowment or a member of his family and recognized as such by the competent authority.”

¶33

The petitioner in support of his contention relies on the decision of

¶34

this Court in the case of Sri Vallabharayeswara Swamy temple Vs. Bellamkonda Venkata Subrahmanya Sarma and Another and the decision

¶35

of this Court in the case of Kum. Shashikala and Four Others Vs. Babita

¶36

Sharma and Three Others.

¶37

3

¶38

Having regard to the contentions advanced, it is relevant to refer

¶39

to the provisions of Section 87 (1) (h) of the Act, Which reads as follows:

¶40

“Section 87(1)(h) :-

¶41

87. Power of Endowments Tribunal to decide certain disputes

¶42

and matters:- (1) The Endowments Tribunal having jurisdiction shall have the power, after giving notice in the prescribed manner to the person concerned, to enquire into and decide any dispute as to the question-

¶43

----------

¶44

(h) Whether a person is a founder or a member from the family of the founder of an Institution or Endowment.”

¶45

In view of the above provisions, without going into the merits of

¶46

the case, the Court is of the considered view that in order to deicide if the petitioner is entitled to be appointed/recognized as founder member of the temple, certain findings of facts are to be recorded, which this Court under Article 226 cannot do so. The Tribunal is fact finding authority, in that view of the matter, since alternative remedy is provided under the Act, the petitioner can avail such remedy under Section 87(1)(h) of the Act. Thus liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Act.

¶47