Shaik Masthan Vali Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

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 topleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly a writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceeding in Rc. No. F2/15021/97/2023, dated 27.06.2024 issued by 4th respondent and the final order dated 09.04.2026 passed by the 5th respondent as illegal. arbitrary and contrary to the mandate of section 17 (1) and section 83 (2) of Act No. 30/87, apart from being violative of the principles of natural justice and violative of Article 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the proceeding in Rc. No. F2/15021/97/2023, dated 27.06.2024 issued by 4th respondent and the final order dated 09.04.2026 and pass

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.P PADMAVATHI

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

¶25

::3::

¶26

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 10184 of 2026

¶27

This Court made the following

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted license in the year 2013 by the then owner of the subject land i.e., APSRTC in favour of the petitioner to run fancy and general store business for a period of five years. While license is continuing in favour of the petitioner, the subject property was held in favour of 6^th Respondent as trust property and after transfer of the subject property in favour of the 6^th Respondent as trust property, the license granted in favour of the petitioner was neither renewed nor extended by any of the authority. While so, in the year 2023-2024 the 5^th Respondent directed the petitioner to pay the monthly rents to the Executive Officer, Endowments Department of the 6^th Respondent. Accordingly, the petitioner paid two months rents i.e., one on 03.02.2024 another on 15.05.2024 in favour of the 6^th Respondent – Trust. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned notice dated 09.04.2026 issued by the 5^th respondent who is claiming as Managing Trustee and as Executive Authority of the 6^th Respondent temple is no way concerned and he has no authority to

¶30

::4::

¶31

issue such notice directing the petitioner to vacate the subject premises within seven days. Therefore, the impugned notice issued by the 5^th Respondent is liable to be set aside.

¶32

2. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for 6^th Respondent – Trust draw the attention of this Court that the 2^nd Respondent herein issued proceedings dated 27.06.2024 conferring the management of the institution to the members of the Founder’s Family while withdrawing the appointment of Executive Officer in respect of 6^th Respondent Trust. Pursuant to the said proceedings the 5^th Respondent, who is the member of Founder Family as Managing Trustee of the 6^th Respondent Trust. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that as contemplated under Section 29 of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short “Act, 1987) in the absence of Executive Officer, the 5^th Respondent as Managing Trustee as per proceedings dated 27.06.2024 is empowered to act as an Executive Officer. As such, the 5^th Respondent was authorized to issue impugned notice as an Executive Officer in compliance of Section 29 of the Act, 1987. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein filed a writ petition earlier challenging the action of the eviction of the petitioner by way of W.P.No.31813 of 2025,

¶33

::5::

¶34

wherein this Hon’ble Court was pleased to pass an order dated 12.12.2026 as under:

¶35

“9. In view of the foregoing, the authorities cannot be faulted for passing the impugned orders. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable on facts. However, since the petitioner has been using the premises for his business, the impugned order is modified to the effect of granting time to the petitioner to vacate the subject premises. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted time till the end of March, 2026, to vacate the subject premises.

¶36

The petitioner shall vacate the subject premises on or before 31.03.2026 and handover vacant possession to the Executive Authority of the Trust. The 4^th Respondent is directed to restore the electricity service connection to the subject premises.

¶37

3. On perusal of the order of this Court as extracted above, it is clear and categorical that the petitioner was specifically directed to vacate the premises and hand over the same on or before 31.03.2026 after considering the request of the petitioner and accordingly time was granted. The time which was granted by the Court to vacate the shop was already completed. However, the petitioner herein also challenged the order dated 12.12.2026 of this Court in W.A.No.60 of 2026 before the completion of the time period as fixed by the Court. The Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court passed orders in W.A.No.60 of 2026 as under:

¶38

“Since the issue falls in a very narrow compass, we dispose of this petitioner with liberty to the respondents to serve upon the appellant an appropriate notice within two weeks from today, which shall be responded to within three weeks thereafter. An appropriate decision be taken by the respondents based upon the

¶39

::6::

¶40

response so filed. An opportunity of personal hearing be also granted to the appellant. The judgment and order impugned shall stand modified to that extent”

¶41

In view of the consideration of the facts as narrated above, orders passed by this Court, particularly in W.A.No.60/2026 this Court specifically directed by disposing of the appeal granting liberty to the respondents to serve the notice upon the appellant/petitioner herein within two weeks from 02.02.2026, for which the petitioner was directed to respond by way of reply. Thereafter the respondents are permitted to pass speaking orders accordingly. Therefore, on perusal of the orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition as well as Writ Appeal, the impugned notice dated 09.04.2026 was issued in compliance of the orders of this Court, for which the petitioner shall respond. Having invited the order by preferring Writ Appeal No.60/2026, but without responding as directed by this Court again filing writ petition is amounts to blatant violation as well as disobedience on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, such an attitude of the petitioner cannot be tolerated.

¶42

5. Considering the facts and circumstances as observed above,

¶43

since the petitioner is not complying the orders of this Court as directed, the petitioner is not entitled any relief from this Court by filing another writ petition. Even on merits, as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the 5^th Respondent is not a competent

¶44

::7::

¶45

authority to issue such notice for eviction of the petitioner is not valid and far fetching submission in view of proviso under Section 29 proviso of the Act, 1987 as extracted hereunder.

¶46

“29. Appointment and duties of Executive Officer – There shall be an Executive Officer for every Charitable or Religious Institution or Endowment tobe appointed by the Government in the case of institutions and Endowments having income of rupees one crore and above and by the Commissioner in the case of other Institutions and Endowments included in the lists published under clauses (a) and (b) of Section 6. In respect of charitable or religious institutions or endowment having income of less than rupees two lakhs per annum, and included in the list published under clause (c) of section 6, it shall not be necessary to appoint an executive officer. The cadre of Executive Officers to be appointed under this section for the respective institutions on the basis of the income of the Institution or Endowment shall be as may be prescribed:

¶47

Provided that, where there is no Executive Officer in respect of any Charitable or Religious Institution or Endowment, the trustee or the Chairman of the Board of Trustees or any employee of any Institution or Endowment where the income exceeds Rs.2 lakhs, but is less than Rs. 25 lakhs per annum, duly authorised by the Commissioner in this behalf shall exercise the powers and perform the functions and discharge duties of an Executive Officer:

¶48

Provided further that it shall be competent for the Commissioner to appoint an Executive Officer to any institution having income of less than Rs. 2 lakhs per annum if there are substantial immovable properties to the institution or if he is satisfied that such appointment is necessary in the interest of better administration of the institution or for any other reason to be recorded in writing:

¶49

Provided also that, it shall be competent for the Commissioner to constitute such number of Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments as may be necessary, into a single group for the purpose of appointing an Executive Officer or any other employee to such group.”

¶50

As contended by learned Standing Counsel the petitioner is entitled

¶51

to agitate his rights by way of alternative remedy by approaching the

¶52

tribunal is also not merit submission for the reason that the petitioner

¶53

::8::

¶54

is not submitted any explanation so far, after such submission the respondent shall consider the same and pass a speaking order. After such order, if he aggrieved, he can assail the same for the adjudication before the Tribunal. In the absence of any rights whatso-ever either for continuation of possession or occupation of subject premises which is admittedly vested with 6^th Respondent, hence it is only an unauthorized occupation and as an encroacher on the part of the petitioner.

¶55

6. Therefore, the 5^th and 6^th Respondents are entitled to evict the petitioner in accordance with law since the petitioner was issued notice and he is entitled to submit explanation if any and the authority concerned is entitled to proceed further in accordance with law.

¶56

7. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶57

No costs.

¶58

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

¶59

VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J

¶60

DT: 16.04.2026 krk

¶61

::9::