Allowed

V.Krishnamacharyulu, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its

Telangana HC9 Oct 2007WP/1536/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The writ petition sought to declare a Government Memo arbitrary by which Vahana Purohits were to continue on licence fee basis rejecting a 30% remuneration recommendation. The court quashed the unreasoned Memo and directed a reasoned order within eight weeks, maintaining current fee until final decision.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Memo dated 19-1-2006 set aside; Government directed to reconsider and pass reasoned order within eight weeks; petitioners continued on Rs.3,333/- per annum fee.

V.Krishnamacharyulu, Vs The Government of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2007)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU

¶2

Tuesday, 9th day of October,2007

¶3

W.P.No.1536 of 2006

¶4

Between:-

¶5

V.Krishnamacharyulu & others … Petitioners and The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue (Endowments II) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad and others … Respondents

¶6

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU

¶7

W.P.No.1536 of 2006

¶8

ORAL ORDER:

¶9

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring Memo No.59906/Endowments.II(2)/2005-1, dated 19-1-2006 issued by the 1^st respondent as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to direct the 2^nd respondent to approve the proposals in relating to the appointment of the petitioners, either on regular pay scale or consolidated pay or payment of 30% from out of the income derived from the performance of ‘vahana pujas’ in the 3^rd respondent-Temple.

¶10

According to the petitioners, they are performing ‘vahana pujas’ in Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Yadagirigutta, Nalgonda District – 3^rd respondent herein. Earlier, they were permitted to collect Rs.2/- per 2-wheeler and Rs.5/- per 4-wheeler/6-wheeler vehicles. Thereafter, the same was enhanced to Rs.4/-, Rs.10/- and Rs.15/- respectively. However, the 3^rd respondent was collecting Rs.50/- per 2-wheeler, Rs.100/- per 4-wheeler and Rs.150/per 6 wheeler vehicles. Upto the year 2003, they were directed to deposit Rs.1,116/- for each year towards licence fee. Thereafter, the licence fee was enhanced to Rs.10,116/- per annum. On the said enhancement, they filed a representation before the 3^rd respondent, who, after considering the matter in detail, recommended for payment of remuneration of 30% share in the net collection derived from ‘vahana puja’ tickets. Thereafter, the 2^nd respondent-Commissioner of

¶11

Endowments, by his Proceedings in Rc.No.A1/17482/05, dated 9-122005 after calling for details, suggested and sought for approval of any of the following methods from the Government:

¶12

1. If the 30% remuneration paid to the Vahara purohits the expenditure basing on the income for 2003-04 would be Rs.3,42,380/-

¶13

2. If the 20% remuneration received on Vahana Pooja is paid to the Vahana Purohits the expenditure basing on the income for 2003-04 would be Rs.2,28,259/-

¶14

3. If the (4) Vahana Purohits are allowed to Last Grade Scale, the expenditure would be Rs.2,16,000/-

¶15

4. If the fixed pay is sanctioned at Rs.3500/the expenditure would be Rs.1,68,000/-

¶16

But, the Government through the impugned Memo dated 19-1-2006 simply stated that the 3^rd respondent should continue the services of Vahana Puja Purohits, 4 in number, on the basis of licence fee only. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶17

As noticed above, the 2^nd respondent-Commissioner, after calling for entire particulars as to the expenditure that may incur by the 3^rd respondent, has suggested four methods of dealing with the services of Purohits. None of these suggestions were approved by the Government and instead passed a cryptic order on 19-1-2006 without furnishing any reasons whatsoever. The recommendations made by the 2^nd respondent through letter dated 9-12-2005 addressed to the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (Endowments) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, seem to be on the basis of information furnished by the 3^rd respondent. Since no reasons were furnished by the 1^st respondent in passing the impugned

¶18

Order, the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned Memo dated 19-1-2006 is set aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to reconsider the matter as per the recommendations of the 2^nd respondent sent through his letter Rc.No.A1/17482/05, dated 9-12-2005 and pass a reasoned order, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Till a final decision is taken by the Government, the petitioners shall be continued on payment of Rs.3,333/- per annum towards licence fee.

¶19

The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.

¶20

09-10-2007

¶21

Office to furnish CC within a week (B.O.) prk

V.Krishnamacharyulu, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Krishnamacharyulu, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Reddi Radhakrishna Vs Reddi Lakshmi

Water Users Association, Vs The Engineer-in-Chief Works

Smt. Malini, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Potluri Veera Raghavulu Vs The Collector, Guntur District

Special Deputy Collector (I.a), Vs Sri Palavalasa Chinnappalanaidu

Nalla Komaraiah Vs The State of a.P., through Public Prosecutor