The Hon'ble High Court dismissed this writ petition challenging the appointment of an outsider as a Single Trustee of a charitable institution. The Court held that without a formal recognition by the competent authority, the petitioner could not claim preferential rights.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM
W.P.NO. 11436 OF 2006
DATED: 12.6.2006
Between:
Teyagura Poli Reddy
and
The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur and another
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM
W.P.NO.11436 OF 2006
ORAL ORDER:
The petitioner claims to be a member of the family of the founder’s of Sri Polireddy Kunta, Polireddy Palem village, Chilakaluripet Mandal, a charitable institution governed by the provisions of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’).
It is not pleaded in the writ petition that the petitioner had applied for and has been recognized as a member of the founder’s family. He was however continuing de facto in the management of the charitable institution. Perhaps this circumstance is the product of the petitioner’s assumption that as a member of the founder’s family, he could manage the affairs of a charitable institution even without recognition as such and appointment as a trustee by the competent authority by following the substantive and procedural requirements of the Act superadded by the sharing of this misconception by the officials of the Endowments Department.
By the impugned proceedings dated 22.12.2005, the 1st respondent appointed the 2nd respondent-manager of the Chilakaluripet Group of temples, as the Single Trustee of the institution. The petitioner contends that this order of the 1st respondent is illegal as a member of the founder’s family could not have been ignored while appointing an outsider as a Single Trustee.
In the circumstances of this case as adverted to above, this contention is fallacious. The petitioner’s claim to being a member of the founder’s family has not yet been determined by the competent authority as required under the provisions of the Act. Till such recognition and declaration, the petitioner cannot claim any preferential right to be appointed as a trustee. The petitioner’s de facto management of the properties of the charitable institution is also not in
accordance with law. While the petitioner is at liberty to make an application for recognition as a member of the founder’s family and for the benefits consequent on such recognition, no case is made out for interdiction of the impugned order.
The impugned order is impeccable and suffers from no illegality. The writ petition is without merits and is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs.
GODA RAGHURAM, J
Date: 12.6.2006
cvm
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a member of a founder's family can claim preferential right to appointment as a trustee without recognition by the competent authority.
Whether the appointment of an outsider as a Single Trustee is illegal when the petitioner's claim of family membership remains undisputed.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to an injunction against the impugned appointment order.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Teyagura Poli Reddy
The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur
The manager of Chilakaluripet Group of temples
GODA RAGHURAM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
