This court dismissed a writ appeal preferring a writ petition challenging the appointment of temple trustees. The court found that antecedents were properly verified and dismissed allegations of non-application of mind or disqualification of appointees.
Writ petition and writ appeal dismissed; interim order ceased to have effect.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SRI N.V. RAMANA AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
Writ Appeal No. 91 of 2013 and Writ Petition No. 36711 of 2012
DATED: 07-06-2013
Writ Appeal No. 91 of 2013
Between: Bapuram Gurunath Reddy and another
… Appellants
The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Secretary, Revenue (Endowments) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 12 others
… Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SRI N.V. RAMANA AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
Writ Appeal No. 91 of 2013 and Writ Petition No. 36711 of 2012
COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana, J)
Writ Appeal No. 91 of 2013 is preferred by the writ petitioners in Writ Petition No. 36711 of 2012 against the orders passed by the learned single Judge dated 21-12-2012 in WVMP Nos. 4290, 4409 and 4435 of 2012 modifying the interim stay granted earlier.
During the course of hearing of the appeal, at the instance of the learned counsel appearing for either side, we have called for the writ petition so that the writ petition itself can be disposed of. We have also called for the records from the learned Government Pleader as the specific allegation of the appellants – writ petitioners is that no antecedent verification was done as per the rules required. We have perused the entire record.
For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the writ petition.
Under notification dated 10-01-2012, applications were called for, for constituting the Trust Board of Sri Narasimha Eeranna Swamy Devasthanam, Urukunda Village, Kowthalam Mandal, Kurnool District. The said notification appears to have been published in Eenadu Telugu daily newspaper on 08-02-2012 and it appears that as many as 42 applications were received by respondent No.1. The said applications were forwarded by respondent No.1 for consideration by the Committee which is constituted in terms of G.O.Rt.No.322,
Revenue (Endowments-I) Department, dated 25-02-2012. The Committee has called for and examined the antecedents of different applicants and communicated its report to the Collector. The antecedents report was submitted by the Collector to respondent No. 2 - the Commissioner on 12-10-2012 and respondent No. 2 in turn forwarded the said report to respondent No. 1 on 12-11-2012. Based on the said report, it appears that respondent Nos. 5 to 13 were selected as Trustees of the said temple and proceedings were issued under G.O.Rt.No. 1657, Revenue (Endowments-II) Department, dated 24-11-2012. The said appointment was for a period of two years from the date of taking oath of the office. The appointment of the respondent Nos. 5 to 13 is questioned by the petitioners in the writ petition principally on two grounds, (1) that there is total nonapplication of mind on the part of the respondents – authorities as the same set of names of the trustees was recommended by a Member of Parliament to the Portfolio Minister for Khammam District under letter of the Member of Parliament dated 13-09-2012. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the names mentioned in the said letter, in verbatim, have been reflected by the respondents – authorities in the impugned G.O. (2) Learned counsel also questioned the said appointment on the ground that there is no proper verification of antecedents of the said trustees and respondent No.1 while exercising power under Section 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’) has abdicated his duties and surrendered to the dictates of the Member of Parliament, who later became the minister in Central Government. Learned counsel has also placed strong reliance upon a
decision of this Court in Pagadala Pratap v. State of A.P[1] . He also placed reliance upon Rules 6 and 7 of the Appointment of Trustees Rules, 1987 framed under Section 17 (3) of the Act. According to him,
it is the duty of the competent authority to cause verification of antecedents by making discrete enquiries before making appointments. The previous Chairman against whom allegations are pending has managed to get appointment of his mother as a trustee, who is arrayed as respondent No.5. He also submits that respondent Nos.8 and 10 are disqualified as they are accused in criminal cases and so far as respondent No.13 is concerned, it is alleged that his son is employed in the temple and, as such, respondent No.13 could not have been appointed.
Learned counsel for respondent No.5 rebutted the said contentions by raising a ground relating to locus standi of the petitioners by contending that the petitioners are not eligible to question the appointment of the respondents – trustees. He also submitted that respondent No.5 cannot be said to be disqualified merely because she is the mother of the previous Chairman. Similarly, learned counsel for respondent Nos.8 and 9 submitted that neither of the said trustees are disqualified on any ground and the criminal cases which are referred to by the petitioners ended in acquittal long back. It is also contended that both the said trustees have already completed one term as trustees and the present appointment is for the second term and, as such, there is no impediment for their appointment. Learned counsel for respondent No.13 also refuted the allegations against respondent No.13 by stating that his son is only a contract employee and that by itself is not a disqualification. All the learned counsel for the respondents contended that as the petitioners are unable to show any ground which disqualifies any of the respondents – trustees as contemplated under Section 19 of the Act, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Learned Government Pleader produced the record and has pointed out that the procedure prescribed under the rules aforesaid has been scrupulously followed and antecedents of each candidate
has been duly verified by the Committee and the report along with the recommendations of the Committee was duly considered by the competent authority and only thereafter the appointments have been made. The letter of the Member of Parliament is not disputed by the learned Government Pleader, but he submits that the said letter is dated 13-09-2012 and by then, the Committee was already examining the antecedents of each applicant and in any case there is no impediment in considering the said letter. However, all the appointments have been made after due verification and following the procedure and, as such, the appointment of respondents – trustees cannot be invalidated merely on the ground that a Member of Parliament has recommended their names. Learned Government Pleader also submits that except respondent Nos.5, 11, 12 and 13, the other respondents – trustees are already trustees for the previous term and for them, this is the second term for which they are appointed. Since the appointment of those trustees in the first term was not questioned, there is no impediment for their continuation in the second term.
We have considered all the aforesaid contentions and have also carefully perused the record produced by the learned Government Pleader. The antecedents report which was considered by the Committee has been examined by us including the recommendations of the Commissioner to respondent No.1 under his letter No.Rc.No.B5/360833/2011, dated 12-11-2012. The said letter contains a tabular statement containing the report of the Committee with regard to antecedents of 42 applicants. The said tabular statement appended to the Commissioner’s report shows recommendations to the Committee with regard to each applicant as to whether he is qualified or disqualified on any ground. We have
examined the said antecedents report with regard to each of the appointee vis-à-vis the report of the Collector dated
12-10-2012 addressed to the Commissioner. It is true that the Collector’s report mentions that there are no adverse remarks against any applicant except applicant Nos.1, 11, 18 and 42. Out of the said four applicants, applicants at serial Nos.1, 11 and 18 were not appointed as trustees but the applicant at serial No. 42 was appointed. We have therefore verified the antecedent report with regard to applicant No.42 who is respondent No.13 in the writ petition. The report states “he does not possess any disqualifications. His son T. Ranga Swamy is working on contract basis daily wages at Rs.6,000/- per month”. Thus, we do not see any disqualification so far as respondent No.13 is concerned and to that extent, the report of the Collector does not appear to be correct. The Committee also records that so far as respondent No.13 is concerned, he is aged 56 years and does not possess any disqualifications. The record also shows that verification report regarding each candidate is further supported by report from the police authorities. Similarly, with regard to respondent No.8, Basappa, the report states that he was accused No.1 in Crime No.27/96 on the file of Kowthalam Police Station for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 506 read with 149 IPC and was also accused No.8 in Crime No. 47/95 on the file of the same police station for the offences under Sections 147, 323 and 506 read with 149 IPC and was acquitted on 23-06-1997 and that he does not possess any disqualification. Similarly, respondent No.10 Thimmaiah is also said to be accused No.1 in Crime No.289/93 on the file of Kowthalam Police Station for the offences under Sections 147, 148 and 302 read with 34 IPC but was acquitted on 01-03-1995. Thus, on examination of antecedents report, we do not find that any adverse report was given against any of the trustees who were appointed and, as such, none of them are disqualified under
Section 19 of the Act. The letter of the Member of Parliament as a public representative may have been taken into consideration by the competent authority, but that by itself cannot be said to disqualify any of the appointees. Most of the appointees except respondent Nos.5, 11 and 13 were appointed for the second time. When their appointments for the first time remained unchallenged, we see no impediment in sustaining the appointments. Consequently, the allegation of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned G.O suffers from non-application of mind or that it amounts to abdication of duties by the competent authority is not satisfied on the facts and circumstances of the case. Keeping in view the detailed scrutiny of the records, we therefore see no reasons to invalidate the appointments of the respondents – trustees.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. In view of dismissal of the writ petition on merits, interim order which is subject matter of the writ appeal does not any more survives and, therefore, the writ appeal is also dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition and the writ appeal also stand dismissed. No order as to costs.
N.V. RAMANA, J
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J
7th June, 2013 ks
[1] 2010 (4) ALT 510
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appointments of trustees for a temple board were invalid due to total non-application of mind or abdication of duties.
Whether the trustees were disqualified under Section 19 of the Act due to pending cases or familial relations.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Pagadala Pratap v. State of A.P.Referred¶19
Pagadala Pratap v. State of A.P., [1]
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Bapuram Gurunath Reddy
The Government of Andhra Pradesh
N.V. Ramana
Vilas V. Afzulpurkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
