Palla Srinivasa Rao, Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

KUMARI VASANTHAM LAVANYA, D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER. AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, C/O SRI DURGA MALLESWARA SWAMY VARLA DEVASTHANAM INDRA KILADRI, VIJAYAWADA.

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

2

¶19

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 tomay be pleased to appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No.2 and 3 in engaging the services of respondents No.4 and 5 as Senior Legal Advisor and Junior Legal Advisor respectively to the 3rd respondent-Devasthanam through L.Dis.No.B1/COE-12065(51)7134/2025, dated 28.08.2025 on the file of the 2nd respondent and consequential proceedings in Rc.No.A1/73/2017, dated 01.09.2025 on the file of the 3rd respondent and is highly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitution al, without power, without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of Act 30 of 1987 and set aside the same and pass such

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to suspend the operation of the proceedings pursuant to the Letter vide L.Dis.No.B1/COE-12065(51)/134/2025, dated 28.08.2025 on the file of the 2nd respondent and consequential proceedings in Rc.No.A1/73/2017, dated 01.09.2025 on the file of the 3rd respondent pending disposal of the writ petition and pass such

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to grant leave to file the reply affidavit in W.P. No. 28649 of 2025 in the interest of justice, and to pass

¶24

IA NO: 2 OF 2026

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased May be pleased to grant leave to the Respondent No.2 in Writ Petition No. 28649 of 2025 to file counter affidavit in the above writ petition and pass

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶27

1.V V N NARAYANA RAO

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶29

1.KAPPERA KOTESWARA RAO SC for Endowments,AP Region.

3

2.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

3.D V SASIDHAR

The Court made the following:

¶34

4

¶35

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶36

WRIT PETITION NO.28649/2025

¶37

ORDER:-

¶38

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India

¶39

seeking the following reliefs:-

¶40

“to issue appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents Nos.2 and 3 in engaging the services of respondents Nos.4 and 5 as Senior Legal Advisor and Junior Legal Advisor respectively to the 3^rd respondent Devasthanam through L.Dis.No.B1/COE-12065(51)/134/2025 dated 28.08.2025 on the file of the 2^nd respondent and consequential proceedings in Rc.No.A1/73/2017, dated 01.09.2025 on the file of the 3^rd respondent and is highly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, without power, without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of Act 30 of 1987 and set aside the same and pass such other order or orders….”

¶41

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶42

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner herein is a devotee and interested party in the affairs of the respondent No.3-temple. While so, the respondent No.2 herein without there being any authority and without empowering to make subject appointment, appointed respondent Nos. 4 and 5 as Senior Legal Advisor and Junior Legal Advisor, which is contrary to law and causing more burden to the exchequer of the respondent No.-3 temple.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable And Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (in short “the Act 30 of 1987”) under

¶44

5

¶45

which the Commissioner conferred power for administration of the temples particularly, respondent No.3-temple. He further submits that even as per Section 35(4) of the Act 30 of 1987, respondent No.2 is not empowered to appoint respondent Nos. 4 and 5 as legal advisors. He further submits that the Andhra Pradesh Hindu Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Office Holders and Servants Service Rules, 2000 are not permitting to make such appointment in favour of respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Hence, the impugned proceedings dated 28.08.2025 issued by respondent No.2 appointing respondent Nos. 4 and 5 as Legal Advisors 28.08.2025 is liable to be set aside.

¶46

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3 filed counter affidavit, wherein, he clearly and categorically stated that in view of pending cases before the courts and tribunals, the respondent No.3-temple is facing difficulty for peaceful administration of the respondent No.3-temple and also loosing much income due to the pending cases. While so, to get rid of all these problems and for smooth administration, the respondent No.3-temple requested the respondent No.2 for appointment of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 as legal advisors for betterment of the temple under the power empowered under Section 8 of the Act 30 of 1987.

¶47

He further submits that in view of the request submitted by respondent No.3 only, the impugned proceedings were issued pursuance to the authority conferred upon respondent No.2 under Section 8 of the Act 30 of 1987. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner can be rejected

¶48

6

¶49

since they were appointed only for the betterment of the administration of the temple only.

¶50

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 submits that pursuant to the appointment they have been rendering services and assisting the learned Standing Counsel at High Court and Tribunal for fast resolution of the pending cases.

¶51

Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the material placed on record, the core issue only for consideration before this Court is that whether the respondent No.2 is empowered to issue such impugned proceedings that the appointment of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 as legal advisors would come within the meaning of better administration of temple or not. For which, it is appropriate to extract Section 8 of the Act 30 of 1987. Section 8 of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 reads as follows:

¶52

“ 8. Powers and functions of Commissioner and Additional Commissioner: -

¶53

(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the administration of all charitable and Hindu religious institutions and endowments shall be under the general superintendence and control of the Commissioner and such superintendence and control shall include the power to pass any order which may be deemed necessary to ensure that such institutions and endowments are properly administered and their income is duly appropriated for the purposes for which they were found or exist.

¶54

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, the Commissioner shall exercise the powers conferred on him and perform the functions entrusted to him by or under this Act in respect of such institutions or endowments

¶55

7

¶56

in the State as are included in the lists published under clause (a), clause (d) and clause (e) of section 6.

¶57

(3) The powers and functions of the Additional Commissioner shall be such as may be determined by the Government from time to time.

¶58

(4) The Commissioner may delegate to a Deputy Commissioner any of the powers conferred on or functions entrusted to the Commissioner by or under this Act including the powers and functions of an Assistant Commissioner which may be exercised or performed by the Commissioner under sub-section (5) but not including the power and functions of the Commissioner under sub-section (1), sections 6, 15, 49, 51, 66, 90, 92 and 132 in respect of any institution or endowment or any class or group of institutions or endowments in the State, subject to such restrictions and control as the Government may, by general or special order lay down and subject also to such limitations and conditions, if any, as may be specified in the order of delegation.

¶59

(5) The Commissioner may delegate to an Assistant Commissioner any of the powers conferred on or functions entrusted to the Commissioner by or under this Act except the powers and functions of the Commissioner under sub-section (1), sections 6, 15, 49, 51, 66, 90, 92 and 132 in respect of any institution or endowment in the sub-division in charge of the Assistant Commissioner subject to such restrictions and control as the Government may, by general or special order, lay down and subject also to such limitations and conditions if any, as may be specified in the order of delegation.

¶60

(6) Notwithstanding anything in sections 10 and 11, the Commissioner may, by order in writing, declare that the exercise and performance of all or any of the powers or functions by the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner, as the case may be, shall be subject to such exceptions, limitations and conditions as may be specified in the order and he may himself exercise any power or perform the functions so excepted. ”

¶61

On perusal of the Section 8 of the Act 30 of 1987, it is observed that the respondent No.2 is empowered to pass any order or issue any proceedings

¶62

which may be deemed necessary to ensure that such institutions or endowments are properly administered. In the instant case, for proper administration of the respondent No.3 temple, respondent No.3 made request

¶63

8

¶64

to the respondent No.2 for appointment of legal advisors to deal with the pending cases which are obstructing day to day administration of the temple. Therefore pursuant to the request and without proper administration of the respondent No.3 temple, the respondent No.2 exercised his power conferred

¶65

under Section 8 of the Act 30 of 1987. On perusal of the impugned proceedings, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were already appointed as legal advisors to deal with the legal matters against the respondent No.3 apart from the learned Standing Counsels appointed in respect of the concerned forums and High Courts. Therefore, the appointment of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 by the respondent No.2 is certainly for the betterment and proper administration of the respondent No.3 temple.

¶66