Disposed

Raja Vinay Mohan Lal BhatNager v. Commissioner for Endowments

Telangana HC16 Aug 2004WP/10321/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, trustee of a temple, challenged the appointment of the fourth respondent as Manager, claiming no such post exists. The Court held that the appointment was for administrative convenience, clarified that the respondent only discharges Executive Officer duties under the petitioner's control, and disposed of the writ petition without quashing the challenged order.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of; the fourth respondent shall discharge duties only as an Executive Officer under the petitioner's control.

Raja Vinay Mohan Lal BhatNager Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2004)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO : 10321 of 2004

¶7

Between:

¶8

Raja Vinay Mohan Lal Bhatnager S/o Late Sri Brij Mohan Lal Bhatagar, aged 62 years, occupation: Retired, resident of 3-5-15, Ramkote, Hyderabad.

¶9

... PETITIONER.

¶10

AND

¶11

1. Commissioner for Endowments, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Tilak Road, Hyderabad.

¶12

2. Joint Commissioner of Endowments, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Tilak Road, Hyderabad.

¶13

3. Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, R.R.District, Hyderabad. 4. Sri M.Veeresham, S/o not known, Major, C/w office of Asst. Commissioner , Endowments Department, R.R.District,

¶14

...RESPONDENTS.

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction preferably a writ in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the Proceedings No.C/75/04 dt. 28/05/2004 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Ranga Reddy District, at Hyderabad and quash the same in so far as "SRI RAMACHANDRA SWAMY TEMPLE" situated at Rambagh (Attapur) village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India besides being contrary to the principles of natural justice and consequently suspend the operation of the said proceedings pending disposal of the above Writ Petition..

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.VENUGOPAL

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR ENDOWMENTS.

¶18

Counsel for the 4^th respondent: None appeared.

¶19

The Court made the following:

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

The petitioner is questioning the appointment of the fourth respondent as a Manager of the temple on the ground that no post with the designation ‘Manager’ is prescribed under the Act. Therefore, the impugned order dated 28-5-2004 is illegal.

¶22

The petitioner is the trustee of the temple. There was already a post of Executive Officer created to the subject temple and an Executive Officer of a group of temples is kept in charge of the subject temple.

¶23

The grievance of the petitioner is that the 4^th respondent is trying to usurp the powers of the petitioner in the name of his designation as Manager. Therefore, the order of the third respondent is liable to be cancelled.

¶24

The learned counsel for the respondents represented that the fourth respondent was appointed only as an Executive Officer with the designation ‘Manager’ for administrative convenience and he discharges the duties of the Executive Officer only and he was appointed as a full time manager in the place of in charge Executive Officer of a group of temples.

¶25

In the light of representation made by the Counsel for the respondent, it is clarified that the 4^th respondent shall discharge the duties of the Executive Officer only under the administrative control of the petitioner and the 4^th respondent is entitled to exercise his powers to the extent provided under the Act and discharge his duties as provided

¶26

thereunder. The fourth respondent requiring the petitioner to handover the registers and the books for the purpose of maintenance is not against the duties and powers of the Executive Officer prescribed under the Act.

¶27

There are no grounds to quash the orders of the third respondent dated 2805-2004.

¶28

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the above direction regarding the limits of powers of the 4^th respondent as attributed to the Executive Officer.

¶29

-------------- 16-08-2004

¶30

dvs/dsr

¶31

¶32

1. Commissioner for Endowments, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Tilak Road, Hyderabad.

¶33

2. Joint Commissioner of Endowments, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Tilak Road, Hyderabad.

¶34

3. Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, R.R.District, Hyderabad. 4. Two CCs to the Government Pleader for Endowments, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶35

5. Two CD copies.

Raja Vinay Mohan Lal BhatNager v. Commissioner for Endowments

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raja Vinay Mohan Lal BhatNager v. Commissioner for Endowments

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Md. Kaleem, Vs The Registering Authority

Prayaga Satya Venkata Triyambaka Janaki Ramaiah, Vs Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamy Devasthanam

Smt.B.Mangayamma, Vs Apsrtc rep., by its Vice Chairman and Managing

R.Baig, Vs The Managing Director

Y.Ravinder Raju, Vs The Chairman

Kuna Jagadiswara Rao S/o Karuvulu Vs The Regional Manager, Apsrtc.