Sri Suryanarayana Swamy Seva Samithi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

SREE SURYANARAYANA SWAMY SEVA SAMITHI, SREE SURYANARAYANA SWAMY SEVA SAMITHI (REGD. SOCIETY NO. 389 OF 2011), BHUDAGAVI VILLAGE, URAVAKONDA MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT - 515 812 REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, C. CHIRANJEEVI, S/O. C. YERRISWAMY, AGED 40 YEARS

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (ENDOWMENTS) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA, NTR (OLD KRISHNA) DISTRICT.

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, KUMOOL DISTRICT.

¶17

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS

¶18

::2::

¶19

DEPARTMENT, ANANTHAPURAMU.

¶20

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, (FAC), GROUP TEMPLES, URAVAKONDA, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT.

¶21

SREE SURYANARAYANA SWAMY TEMPLE, BHUDAGAVI VILLAGE, URAVAKONDA MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT - 515 812 REP.BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER(FAC), GROUP TEMPLES, URAVAKONDA.

¶22

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶23

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 to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the Order of 2ND respondent in Rc.No.E2/COE15021/147/2023, dated 06.11.2023 v/here under the 5TH respondent is appointed as Executive Officer (FAC) replacing the petitioner to administer the affairs of 6 respondent temple being bad, illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, and contrary to the Judgment reported in 2022(3) ALD 617(AP), besides offending Articles 14, 25 and 26 of Constitution of India and it is liable to be set aside and consequentially seeking direction to the respondents 2 to 5, not to interfere with the affairs of the 6TH respondent temple and to pass

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶25

1.VENKATASUBBAIAH V

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

1.G RAMANA RAO (SC FOR ENDOWMENTS RAYALASEEMAREGION)

¶28

2.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP)

¶29

::3::

¶30

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶31

WRIT PETITION NOs: 2126 of 2024 and 5967 of 2023

¶32

This Court made the following

¶33

COMMON ORDER:

¶34

Since the parties as well as the issues involved in both the writ petitions are identical, this Court is inclined to pass the following common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts are referred to as they are set out in W.P. No. 2126 of 2024.

¶35

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 2^nd Respondent issued impugned proceedings dated 06.11.2023 appointing 5^th Respondent as Executive Officer (FAC) replacing the petitioner to adminster the affairs of 6^th respondent temple which is contrary to the judgment rendered by this Hon’ble Court in Allaparthi Venkata Chalapathi Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh¹ . Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner Samithi looking after the day-to-day affairs of the 6^th Respondent temple and made application to the 2^nd Respondent for granting

¶36

1 2022(3) ALD 617 (AP)

¶37

::4::

¶38

exemption from the operation of the provisions of sections 15, 29, 57 & 65 of the Andhra Pradesh Hindu Charitable and Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short “Act, 1987”). Pending application of the petitioner and without considering the same, the 2^nd respondent herein has appointed the 5^th Respondent as Executive Officer in respect of 6^th Respondent temple and the same is assailed in the present Writ Petition No.2126 of 2024.

¶39

3. On the other hand learned Government Pleader for Endowments furnished written instructions dated 06.03.2026 issued by the 2^nd Respondent, wherein the claim of the petitioner was considered and observed that the annual income in respect of the 6^th Respondent temple is below five lakhs for the last five years. Even for the year 2024-25 it is Rs.3,43,617/-. Considering the said fact and representation of the petitioner, the 2^nd Respondent issued proceedings granting exemption in favour of the 6^th respondent temple under Sections 15, 29, 57 & 65 of the Act, 1987 for a period of five years.

¶40

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Endowments and perused the material placed on record.

¶41

::5::

¶42

5. In view of the written instructions issued by the 2^nd Respondent by exempting from the operation of the provisions of sections 15, 29, 57 & 65 of the Act, 1987, the claim of the petitioner was redressed and since the redressal of the grievance of the petitioner, the petitioner herein is entitled to look after dayto-day affairs of the 6^th respondent temple and the same was reiterated by the 2^nd respondent in his proceedings. Therefore, no further orders are necessary in this matter for further adjudication.

¶43

6. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings, if so advised. No costs.

¶44

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶45

VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J

¶46

DT: 16.03.2026 krk

¶47

::6::

¶48

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA